PRIVATE BUSINESS

HSBC Investment Banking Bill [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.
	Read the Third time and passed.

Mersey Tunnels Bill

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
	That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
	That all petitions relating to the bill which stand referred to the committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the next session;
	That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
	That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Wednesday 23 October at 7 pm.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Motion made,
	That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Woolas.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered tomorrow.

ENGLISH NATIONAL STADIUM REVIEW

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Final Report made by Mr Patrick Carter in October 2002 in respect of the English National Stadium Review.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Oral Answers to Questions

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Affordable Housing (London)

Mike Gapes: What plans he has to increase the availability of affordable homes in London.

John Prescott: We are working on a range of measures, for both the short and the long term, to ensure that more people have access to an affordable home in London. For 2003–04, #482 million of the Housing Corporation's programme will go directly to London projects, along with a #200 million challenge fund to encourage quick delivery of 4,000 new affordable homes in the south-east through off-site manufacturing.

Mike Gapes: I am grateful for that reply, but does my right hon. Friend accept that London faces an acute housing crisis? Many people cannot afford to live and work in the city. Is not it time that we invested far more in social housing, instead of selling off the social housing that we have? At the same time, should not we recognise the needs of those London boroughs that do not have much land but which have serious problems with people on their housing lists? Should we not give those authorities the right to nominate people for the new social housing developments in the Thames gateway and elsewhere?

John Prescott: I agree a great deal with my hon. Friend. Resources are important. Since the Government were elected in 1997, we have tripled the resources devoted to housing, raising the figure from #1.5 billion to #4.5 billion in the third year of the spending review. However, the problems are immense. On 18 July, I mentioned in the House that, by the end of this year or the beginning of next, I would make a statement about how we will apportion the resources available in the community housing programme.

David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister has made it known in recent months that he does not approve of the right to buy. In stressed areas such as London, he believes that it leads to a reduction in the availability of affordable housing. The outcome has been a panic in London, with applications for the right to buy doubling in many London boroughs. Will he comment on that?

John Prescott: I have made it clear that we have not challenged the right to buy. The Government have brought before the House housing proposals that would have given us the opportunity to restrict the right to buy had we wanted to do so. As I have pointed out, housing problems in certain areas of London have reached such a crisis point that we need to act in a variety of ways, and that includes giving consideration to the right to buy. I chose to use legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government that laid down that there could be restrictions on the right to buy in 25 rural district areas. I believe that homeless people in inner-city areas are just as important as those in rural areas.

David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be getting excited, but I have looked forward for some time to this occasion today. I was going to say that he and I are old sparring partners, but his history and my broken nose mean that that phrase could be misinterpreted.
	It is interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the fact that he is interested in restricting the right to buy. We are not talking about rural areas today, although I have some sympathy with that argument. However, in the five years that the Government have been in power, homelessness in London has doubled. The Government need more imagination in what they are doing, instead of resorting to the simple ideological nonsense that the Deputy Prime Minister has come up with.
	The Mayor of London has proposed that new development in London should be 50 per cent. affordable. At first sight, that proposal appears very good, but many experts think that it would drive development down or out of London. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give his opinion on that proposal?

John Prescott: Perhaps I should have welcomed the right hon. Gentleman to his position, although I am confused about whether he is shadow Deputy Prime Minister or shadow Secretary of State; there are different interpretations according to who is asked, but I welcome him to whatever position it is.
	On the right to buy, I think I have made the position clear: we want to consider the matter where there is a homelessness crisis, and that is certainly the case in some inner-city areas and in London. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a new policy at his party conference whereby about a million people in housing associations would have the right to buy. I should inform the House that that is not a new policy; it was announced by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979 and for 20 years the Conservatives were unable to implement it because they could not get a majority for it in the House. Not only is the policy not new, it is completely uncosted and, frankly, has nothing to do with the right to buy, but only the right to become the Leader of the Opposition.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the Government's examination of the housing crisis facing people in the inner city, especially inner London. Does the Secretary of State accept that unless there is a substantial increase in affordable rented housing in inner London, the poor will simply be exported from the city? Will he also intervene when local authorities, such as Islington, are deliberately selling off vacant property and buildings that could be converted into affordable rented housing, to ensure that the working-class and poor people of this city can continue living in this city and do not become just a prey to property speculation?

John Prescott: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, especially that the right to live in the city is equally as important as the right to buy and that those rights are in conflict. That is why I have asked my Department to look carefully into the circumstances and I hope shortly to be able to report our conclusions to the House.
	As for how many houses should be built in those areas, I am looking into that problem and will report back to the House.

Don Foster: I am not surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister is confused about the Conservatives' alleged new policy on the right to buy when, only five months ago, their then housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), referred to the right-to-buy scam. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, with 100,000 empty homes in London, one way to solve the housing problem would be to bring some of them back into use? Is it not a disgrace that, if someone wants to build a four-bedroomed, double-garage, mock-Georgian house on a greenfield site, they pay no VAT, yet they have to pay full VAT at 17.5 per cent. to renovate empty properties? Should not VAT be equalised for both at 5 per cent?

John Prescott: That sounds like quite a good policy—we have advocated it from time to time. The hon. Gentleman must await the Chancellor's decision; hon. Members would not expect me to give a judgment, although I might have a view on tax matters.
	The hon. Gentleman's comments about empty houses are absolutely right— we have not done anything about that. I point out to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), whatever his title may be, that all parties have to take some blame. As I said on 18 July, it would be much better if we took more opportunities to improve the situation for the homeless rather than making political propaganda out of it.
	The point about empty houses is obvious and I am looking at the matter, including the incentives that might be involved in achieving the objectives. I am taking a comprehensive view.

Public Service Agreements

Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on progress with local PSAs.

Barbara Roche: We have concluded negotiations and signed agreements with 61 local authorities, including 20 that were involved in the pilot stage of this scheme. We are concluding negotiations with 19 authorities and have started others with a further 13 authorities. A schedule for negotiations has been agreed with the remaining authorities that wish to take part in the scheme.

Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer.
	In the spirit of the new localism, will my hon. Friend ensure that the spirit of the local public service agreements, which were widely welcomed as representing a real partnership for improvement between central and local government, is not lost in the new comprehensive assessment regime but made central to it?

Barbara Roche: I agree with the important points made by my hon. Friend. Local agreements are essential to local delivery. The best thing about the scheme is that it enables local authorities not only to agree national targets but to deliver the objectives wanted by local people in their area.

David Ruffley: Can the Minister tell us the annual cost of monitoring these over-bureaucratic local PSA targets?

Barbara Roche: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures, but I would be careful about criticising them if I were him because all political parties in all the local government organisations warmly welcome them. Indeed, Kent county council, which is controlled by the party that he supports, is a great supporter of them.

Alan Simpson: I thank the Minister for rejecting the notion that local PSAs are a bureaucratic encumbrance—there is local authority enthusiasm for them—but will she focus on the aspect that relates to the decent homes standard to ensure that local authorities are not caught in a different trap where the obligations to meet energy efficiency targets are in conflict with their commitments to provide safe housing areas in which people can live?

Barbara Roche: That is an important point, and my hon. Friend has a very honourable record in this area. The good thing about those schemes is that local authorities and other agencies in the voluntary sector can negotiate with us directly to make sure that they get aims of that kind.

Local Government Finance

Richard Younger-Ross: What progress he is making on the review of grants to local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the methodology he is using.

Nick Raynsford: The formal consultation on options for the formula grant distribution system closed on 30 September. We will consider the evidence, the pressures and the points made before we take decisions. Those decisions will be announced in the 2003–04 provisional settlement around the start of December.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister accept—he partially did in the debate that we started yesterday and have still to continue—that the present methodology is extremely complicated? Would it not be better to move from the present grant system to a fair system, abolish the present Tory council tax and have a system based on ability to pay, such as a local income tax?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate elements in the local government finance framework. The Liberal Democrats' local income tax proposals are, as I understand them—they are a confused party with somewhat confused proposals—designed to be an alternative to the council tax. What we are discussing under the formula grant distribution is Government grant and how it is distributed between local authorities. That in no way relates to raising any form of local revenue through local income tax.

Judy Mallaber: As part of the review, will my right hon. Friend consider how to implement the Government's policy of helping coalfield areas? That policy is directly contradicted by making those areas, such as Derbyshire, subsidise the wealthier, less deprived counties through the area cost adjustment—the home counties subsidy.

Nick Raynsford: Several issues have been raised during the consultation about particular indicators and measures that would be significant to coalfield communities. Some of the issues that we have considered have also related to rural, former coalfield areas with relatively sparse populations that have suffered the consequences of the decline in the traditional industries, so we are looking at the detailed factors in coalfield areas and, indeed, in all areas. I hope that, when we publish our proposals, my hon. Friend will understand that we have been doing our best to replace the unsatisfactory standard spending assessment with a fairer, more transparent and better system.

Paul Beresford: Does the Minister agree that those local authorities that find that their grant will be supported by the floor next year, but get specific grants for a large proportion of their funding this year, may find his promise that they will be no worse off pretty hollow?

Nick Raynsford: No; the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have given a clear undertaking that no local authority will suffer a cash loss as a result of the change in formula. [Interruption.] Opposition Members get very excited about this. I have explained time and again—let me do so once more so that they may eventually come to understand—that we will have a floor, which we expect to be substantially higher than the guarantee that I have already offered. Until we have received all the data, including information on up-to-date school populations, it is not possible to come forward with floors because we do not have the information on which to reach a prudent and sensible judgment. While the Conservatives are becoming increasingly irresponsible in financial matters, we believe that we need to be prudent and responsible.

Desmond Turner: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that, in reforming the distribution of Government grant to address what are perceived as injustices, it would be very sad if we were to introduce fresh injustices. I fear that that might happen if sufficient cognisance is not taken of high housing costs, which would greatly affect unitary authorities such as mine that have high social deprivation in association with extremely high housing costs, which create terrible problems.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point in highlighting the particular needs in some areas with very high costs. He will appreciate, however, in the light of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), that there are concerns about the area cost adjustment in areas of low cost. One of our dilemmas is trying to reconcile the many conflicting claims of different areas, which see the need for changes in the system that will advantage them. Our job is to achieve a balance, reach a judgment and produce a system that is the fairest possible combination of factors, recognising the different pressures facing different areas.

Eric Pickles: Dealing with the specific grant element of the reforms, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the director of inspection at the Audit Commission, Mr. Paul Kirby? He has said:
	XThe idea that you give freedom to the people who are already achieving is quite perverse. The real issues are the councils in the middle and the failing ones which actually just need a lot more freedom."
	Does he also agree with Mr. Kirby that pinning down councils is causing a problem?
	The right hon. Gentleman has been at the Department for many years. When did he realise that the Government's reforms were causing damage to local authorities? When does he expect that local authorities will have the degree of freedom that they had under the last Conservative Government?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps consider employment in a comedy show, because his last question indicates a remarkable lack of sense of reality. The last Conservative Government were responsible for the greatest act of centralisation of powers, taking powers away from local government, controlling local authority spending, abolishing local authorities and interfering again and again in local democracy. I am delighted that the Conservatives have had a death-bed repentance and that they will follow our Government in giving freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities.
	On Mr. Kirby, we not only agree with him—although not on that particular point—but have just employed him in central Government. He will be taking up a new post helping us to improve delivery. On that point, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether he really believes that it is perverse to give additional rewards and support to successful authorities to encourage them to do even better. He will be in a minority of one if he believes that.

Local Government Ombudsman

Kevin Brennan: If he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to require local authorities to implement recommendations of reports from the local government ombudsman.

Christopher Leslie: To maintain the independence of the public sector ombudsmen, the Government do not intend to shift the balance and compel local authorities to implement all ombudsmen reports. Councils are accountable first to their electorates. However, audit and inspection will become more important for local government as the new system of comprehensive performance assessment comes into effect.

Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this era of earned autonomy and modernisation, local authorities should be made to be accountable when citizens successfully show themselves to have been the victims of municipal maladministration?

Christopher Leslie: I certainly agree that local authorities should be held to account. However, they should primarily be held to account by their electorates rather than by putting ombudsmen into a management structure above them. The ombudsmen do not wish to have such binding power, but I understand my hon. Friend's sentiments.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister reconsider this matter? I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). If someone goes through the procedure of going to the local ombudsman and the ombudsman gives advice and makes recommendations, surely the local authority should implement those recommendations. They usually are implemented but, if they are not, does that not make a mockery of the ombudsman's role if he cannot—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy. That is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

Sydney Chapman: I think that I have made my point.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman certainly did. The ombudsmen say that they are dissatisfied with only about 3 per cent. of local authority responses to recommendations. It would not be right to jeopardise the ombudsmen's independence, but I am sure that we all want local authorities to respond fully and comprehensively to the ombudsmen's recommendations.

Adrian Sanders: There are usually two parts to an ombudsman's recommendations, and local authorities often go along with recommendations to change policies. However, in some cases, ombudsmen recommend financial compensation. What right does the citizen have to receive that compensation when a council says that it is not going to follow an ombudsman's recommendations?

Christopher Leslie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we must get this in proportion. Local authorities implement fully and satisfactorily the vast majority of ombudsmen's recommendations. Ultimately, if people are not happy with their local council's response, they should hold it to account at the ballot box.

Regional Government

Teddy Taylor: What the cost of the regional government establishment in England is in 2002–03.

John Prescott: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the legislation for the elected regional assemblies is not yet in place, so there has been no cost in this financial year. However, we fund a number of regional bodies. For example, we fund at a cost of #100 million a year the government offices for the regions that were introduced by the Conservative Government and we are making available grants of #5 million to the eight regional chambers in this financial year.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the increasing public concern at the size and cost of the massive new regional bureaucracies in Cambridge and elsewhere, particularly when no one is terribly sure what they do apart from organising conferences and consultation exercises? I specifically wish to ask whether there are any European obligations pertaining to this. If there are no such obligations, will he agree to scrapping regional government and saving a great deal of taxpayers' money?

John Prescott: I thought that I had made it clear that we have not established regional government yet, so it is not there to scrap. Most of the bodies that have been set up with regional dimensions came under the Administration that the hon. Gentleman supported even though we were a member of the European Community. I point out to him that the number of Tory members of the regional chambers that he wishes to scrap has increased from 130 to 150. Three regions are dominated by Tory council members, so perhaps he should address his remarks to them, including Councillor Howard Briggs, who is from his constituency and sits on the East of England regional assembly.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the North West regional assembly on its recent work in Brussels in lobbying European Commissioners to continue funding the objective 1 area on Merseyside and the rest of the north-west? Does he look forward to the day when directly elected regional assemblies have the power to bring more support and investment to the north-west, the north and other regions of this country?

John Prescott: I compliment all regional assemblies on doing an excellent job in checking what the regional development agencies do. It is the one part of democratic accountability that we have introduced to existing bureaucracy and I believe that it is welcomed by Tory, Labour and Liberal members who sit on the assemblies. Regional assemblies do an excellent job. The House and the Select Committees are aware of that and we should acknowledge it.

County Councils

Peter Luff: What recent representations he has received from representatives of county councils about the future roles, functions and responsibilities of these councils; and if he will make a statement.

Christopher Leslie: Ministers are in regular dialogue with county council leaders and chief executives on a wide range of issues, including finance, planning and, more recently, the White Paper on regional governance.

Peter Luff: The Deputy Prime Minister is planning to sideline Worcestershire county council and other county councils on planning. He is planning to fine Worcestershire county council social services department if it does not do what the Government want. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills is bypassing Worcestershire local education authority and controlling schools direct from Whitehall. The Deputy Prime Minister is planning to perpetuate the unfair funding of Worcestershire county council. He is also planning to abolish Worcestershire country council to create the monstrous regional governments. Our county councils have served us well for so long. What does he have against them?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should calm down and take a breath. There are no plans and no threats to county councils. Indeed, in terms of regional government, the Boundary Committee for England has not precluded letting county councils be unitary authorities. We should let the people choose in a referendum what to do about regional government.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Graham Brady: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 October.

Tony Blair: This morning I met ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today. I also spoke this afternoon to President Megawati of Indonesia.

Graham Brady: In the past six weeks, the Government have missed their targets for literacy and numeracy; they have failed in their target on truancy; they have presided over the chaos in criminal records checks; and they have seen the destruction of all confidence in the A-level system. The Secretary of State for Education is the most accident prone Education Secretary in history. Why does the Prime Minister not sack her?

Tony Blair: For this reason: we have the best primary school results that this country has ever seen and literally hundreds of thousands of children, who used to be in classes of over 30, are now not as a result of the measures introduced by this Government. In addition, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and constituencies up and down the country, we have put extra investment into our school buildings, our computer facilities and the schools themselves, and every single penny piece of it was opposed by the Conservative party.

Jim Sheridan: May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's comments yesterday? It is the innocent and poorest people of Indonesia and, indeed, Iraq, who suffer most from such vicious attacks. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will pursue with vigour those responsible for those pernicious attacks? Will he share with me the regret of the family of a constituent of mine, young Stephen Speirs, who lost his life in the tragedy in Bali?

Tony Blair: First, I am sure the whole House would want to join in giving to the family of Stephen Speirs our deepest condolences and sympathy on his tragic murder in Bali. I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that we will do everything we can both to ensure that we prosecute those responsible for the atrocity in Bali and to take action across the world to do everything we can to root out this scourge—this evil—of terrorism, which can strike at any place in the world. His constituents today will be feeling all the grief for the loss of their son, and many other people in the country will be in the same position. We must ensure that more families in the future do not suffer in the same way, which is why we have to take the action we have set out.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I start by associating myself with the Prime Minister's remarks about the victims in Bali?
	In July, the Prime Minister told me:
	Xhead teachers . . . have . . . the power to exclude pupils who have been violent towards their teachers."—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 978.]
	Since then, a school in Surrey has been told to reinstate two boys who threatened to kill their teacher. Does the Prime Minister now regret giving appeals panels the right to overrule head teachers on school discipline?

Tony Blair: No. Of course it is right that head teachers should have the ability to exclude their pupils, but there is an appeals panel procedure, which, as I understand it, was introduced in 1987. It is important, however, that we make sure that the decisions of appeals panels are sensible. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that only a small number of the exclusions were appealed against and the number of appeals upheld was about 3 per cent. of the overall exclusions.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister needs to recognise that in 1998 his Government gave appeals panels the right to overrule schools on exclusions—it did not happen before that. He also needs to remind himself that the teachers at Glyn technology school have refused to take back the children concerned, and as a result his Education Secretary is making a fool of herself, blundering around all over the place, trying to resolve a crisis that she does not have the power to resolve. Surely the simplest thing for the Prime Minister to do is admit that he and his Government have made an honest, straightforward mistake, scrap the appeals panels and give teachers back the power to ensure that there is discipline in their classrooms.

Tony Blair: No. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, the appeals panels were introduced in 1987 and have been working since then. In 2001, we made it clear in an amendment to the statutory guidance that
	Xappeal panels should not normally recommend the reinstatement of pupils where there has been serious actual or threatened violence to a teacher or fellow pupil."
	In addition, from January, there will be a teacher on every panel, an absolute requirement to balance the interests of the whole school against those of the pupil and no scope for overturning exclusions on a technicality. It is not true to say that this Government introduced the appeals panels—they were introduced under the previous Government. Nor is it true to say that we have not tightened the appeals procedure, because we have in the way that I have just described.

Iain Duncan Smith: As usual, everybody is to blame but the Prime Minister and his Government. He is confused, because he gave those appeals panels the power to get pupils back into schools. He knows it, and he will not own up to it. But head teachers up and down the country, such as those whom I met in Manchester and Birmingham this week, all say the same thing: they cannot maintain discipline if they are constantly overruled by bureaucrats, which is what the Prime Minister has made possible.
	I remind the Prime Minister that there are now four times as many attacks on teachers as there were five years ago, when he took office. Forcing schools to keep such pupils does not help the pupils; it does not help the teachers who want to teach and it disrupts the children who want to learn. Why does not the Prime Minister take this opportunity simply to say that he will scrap the appeals panels, as he has the power to do, and sort out this problem?

Tony Blair: I will not say that I will scrap the appeals panels because I do not think that it would be the right thing to do. However, we are making it clear that we would normally expect any pupil who threatens a teacher with violent behaviour to be excluded. The right hon. Gentleman says that head teachers up and down the country all have their decisions overturned, but I point out that 3 per cent. of decisions are overturned.
	It is important to realise also that, as a result of the additional measures that we have introduced and the amendments that we have made to guidance, there is greater protection for teachers. I am not saying that this is not an issue; it is, for precisely the reasons to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. We have amended the statutory guidance. To try to suggest that appeals panels were introduced by this Government, and introduced to constrain head teachers, is simply factually wrong, and it does nothing to advance the debate on education in this country.

Karen Buck: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Metropolitan police youth services and young offending teams on their work in reducing youth crime? In particular, will he support my local youth project in Kensington and Westminster, which has run successful summer action programmes, and Operation Puma, aimed at cracking down on antisocial behaviour, which is helping to implement #3 million-worth of Government investment in behaviour improvement in schools? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a long way to go, and can he assure me that, now that the summer is over, the youth service and connection programmes will continue to have the highest priority in bringing about a sustained reduction in youth crime?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to say that, as a result of the changes that have been made, we ensure not merely that there is big investment in summer programmes for young people but that any child who is permanently excluded from school is now in full-time education, as opposed to being left to roam the streets with a minimum of two hours' education a week. In addition, as a result of the measures taken by the Metropolitan police, street crime has fallen in London. I can assure my hon. Friend that both the investment and the necessary changes that have worked such improvements in her area will be applied across the country.

Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister tell the House under what circumstances he would refuse to support unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq?

Tony Blair: I am not going to speculate on the basis on which we will or will not support military action in Iraq. I simply say that I have made it very clear in the House that I want this to proceed on the broadest possible basis of consent. That is why we have the process under way at the moment in the United Nations. I have also said—and I repeat—that the United Nations has to be the way of dealing with this issue, not the way of avoiding dealing with it.
	I believe that we will achieve a consensus internationally. The reason for that is that I think that most people, when they reflect on the matter, understand that weapons of mass destruction are an issue, understand that it is not safe for the world to allow Saddam to have chemical, biological and, potentially, nuclear weapons, and understand that the world community must make it clear that he has to be disarmed of those weapons. I hope that it is done through the UN, and that is what I am trying to achieve.

Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister is undoubtedly genuine in believing that the fight against terrorism can be accompanied by preparations for possible military action against Iraq; that the two can and, indeed, must go hand in hand. Will he acknowledge, however, that the successful building of an international coalition against terrorism, including across the political spectrum in this country, could begin to fracture if unilateral action is taken against Iraq?

Tony Blair: I certainly understand the concerns that people have about unilateral action. It is precisely for that reason that I have tried to achieve a situation where action is taken through the United Nations. I also think that people in this country are sensible enough to realise that we cannot do nothing about a regime as despicable as Saddam's, which has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
	I would have thought that most people could agree that this is the right way forward: the United Nations lays down very clearly to Saddam that he must disarm himself of those weapons and co-operate fully with the weapons inspectors. If he does so and disarmament happens peacefully, then conflict is avoided; but if he refuses to co-operate or to allow the inspectors to do their work, the international community will face a choice: either its will or authority will have been flouted and it will have done nothing about it, or it will have faced up to the fact that its will had been flouted and acted. I happen to believe that where the UN's authority is challenged in that way, we have a duty to act. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

Linda Perham: Does the Prime Minister accept that company activities must be made more accountable and transparent? Will he give an undertaking that the next companies Bill will include a commitment to mandatory social, environmental and financial reporting?

Tony Blair: I cannot give a commitment in precisely those terms, but the issues that my hon. Friend raises around social responsibility are the subject of discussions at the moment between the Department of Trade and Industry and business. We hope that we can make some progress on that, although I would want to do so in a way that minimises any potential bureaucracy or regulation.

Paul Keetch: Does the Prime Minister agree that the United Kingdom must develop as many alternative renewable energy sources as possible? Is he aware of the proposal in Golden Valley in my constituency for what could be the largest UK land-based wind farm, which would put up to 50 turbines—[Interruption.] There would be up to 50 turbines twice the height of Hereford cathedral. As the proposal is too large to be considered by the local authority, does he agree that the only way that both positive and negative views of local people can be heard is by a public inquiry?

Tony Blair: I cannot say to the hon. Gentleman that I am an expert on the Golden Valley wind farm proposal, but I am somewhat helped. Proposals for any such power stations above a certain capacity are considered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. However, it says here that no such application has been made to build a wind farm at Golden Valley—[Laughter.]—so I am slightly at a loss. I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows his constituency better than the people who brief me, so perhaps an application has been made; if so, I will have to write to him to correct what I have just said. Obviously, we are aware of the Liberal Democrats' strong support for—[Hon. Members: XWind."] What can I say other than that this is one area on which I think we can work together?

David Taylor: Given the profound misgivings about the private finance initiative revealed by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants survey, and following the Capita-caused chaos in school staff screening, is it not about time for a fundamental review of that most costly and misconceived of policies; and should not our leadership end its five-year love affair with private financiers and get back to basics in public service delivery?

Tony Blair: I am afraid the short answer is no—I do not agree with that at all. We certainly will not scrap PFI. The reason for that is simple: up and down this country, it is delivering hospitals, schools and improvements to our public services. I know that from my constituency, where it has delivered a brand new community hospital and is delivering improvements to local schools. It would be wholly irresponsible of us to get rid of it. The fact is that it has resulted in an additional #4 billion of investment in this country. Under the old way—under the Conservatives and, indeed, the last Labour Government—we never had anything like the capital programme we now have flooding into our public services. This is one occasion on which we are at our best when at our boldest.

Iain Duncan Smith: When Mike Tomlinson, the man leading the inquiry into A-level regrading, describes the exams system as
	Xan accident waiting to happen",
	what will the Prime Minister do to guarantee that the current crisis will not happen again next year?

Tony Blair: We of course take full responsibility for it, and it is important that we learn the lessons, which is precisely what we are doing. Mike Tomlinson will complete his report in the next few months. We shall then make sure that—as we did with the lessons he outlined recently—any lessons he outlines in that report are learned and implemented.

Iain Duncan Smith: But many of those lessons were evident long before the Tomlinson report. Mr. Tomlinson has said that now nobody—teachers or pupils—has any idea what an A-level is. He admits that at the heart of the current mess is the fact that AS-levels are too easy—we know that the examination boards thought that. However, we also know that parents, teachers and pupils feel that the AS-level places too great a strain on them during the course of their two-year studies. Surely the Prime Minister has a simple answer in front of him: why does he not simply do away with the AS-level?

Tony Blair: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why we will not do that. Let me explain how AS-levels came into being. In 1996, the Conservative Government set up a committee under Sir Ron Dearing: that committee recommended AS-levels. The then Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment—now the shadow Leader of the House—said:
	XSir Ron has . . . proposed introducing a new advanced subsidiary—or AS—qualification, representing the first half of a full A-level . . . We have already welcomed those recommendations",
	adding, XWe expect" them
	Xto be in place by September 1998."—[Official Report, 17 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 1178-79.]
	That formed part of the Conservative manifesto in 1997. We took over that consultation process, which yielded 66 per cent. of respondents in favour of AS-levels. The only change we made was to delay implementation from 1998 to 2000. That is why we do not believe that it is sensible to scrap AS-levels.

Iain Duncan Smith: I say to the Prime Minister that when it's wrong, it's wrong and there is no point in trying to pretend that it's right. He has in front of him five years—[Interruption.]—of looking at that examination and all the reports that have come back from teachers and parents—[Interruption.].

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should leave the shadow Leader of the House alone.

Iain Duncan Smith: I must say that I thought that it would be a fine day when Labour Members would pray in aid my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House.
	The Prime Minister has in front of him all the evidence from parents and teachers, and from all the assessments that have been made, that the AS-level examination, since being implemented, has failed. So the right hon. Gentleman has a simple choice. Right now, faith in A-levels has been shaken to the core. No one even knows whether they are worth the paper that they are written on. Why does he not accept that the AS-level is a failure and that it is time to scrap it?

Tony Blair: That is not what the Tomlinson report found at all. Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman says that A-levels are not worth the paper on which they are written, that is a gross insult to teachers and pupils throughout the country. This has been an immensely difficult time for students, but only slightly more than 1,200 had amended grades—about 4,000 have their grades amended every year in the normal way; and 168 students may have to change their universities. It is wrong that they should have been put in that position. We accept full responsibility for that. However, to say to students that A-levels are not worth the paper on which they are written is totally irresponsible.
	I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what most parents would fear, and that is what was outlined at the Conservative party conference when it was said that the aim of the party in public services was to complete the Thatcher revolution. That is what would worry most parents. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are nodding their heads. That is exactly what they want to do. What is more, parents would be worried also by the commitment given at the Conservative party conference that Conservatives would not support the extra investment in education.
	Parents will have a clear choice between the Government, who believe in equality of opportunity and access for our students, and the extra investment to sustain that, or the Opposition, who want to continue the bad old days of the 1980s and have opposed the investment that our schools need.

Mr. Speaker: I call Andrew Miller. [Hon. Members: XMore."] Order.

Andrew Miller: As someone who has spent all his adult life as an active trade unionist, I have had to write to members of the Fire Brigades Union locally to tell them that I think that the claim that has been submitted is ill-founded. As much as everyone believes that the fire fighters have a case that needs to be examined, they have gone over the top with their claim. Will my right hon. Friend set out the Government's position so that fire fighters throughout the country know that they have the Government's support but realise that the claim, as it stands, is ill-founded?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We support, of course, the work that fire fighters do. They do a fantastic job. However, we cannot support the wage claim because it amounts to 40 or even 50 per cent. In circumstances where inflation is as low as it is, no Government could support such a claim.
	Secondly, we have offered a fully independent review under Sir George Bain, who is highly respected by those within the trade union movement as well as outside it, to look into the claims of the fire fighters. Unfortunately, at present the union leadership is saying that it will not co-operate with that review in any way.
	We have tried to do our best to ensure that there is some objective basis on which we can study the claims that are being made. I ask the union leadership to co-operate with Sir George's review. If it refuses to do so, it must understand that we as a Government, trying to act responsibly in terms of the public interest, could not support a 40 or 50 per cent. wage claim. The only result of that would be problems throughout the public services and a rise in interest rates that would do no good to anyone.

Hugh Robertson: Following the introduction of the national minimum wage, why do the Government insist on retaining an agricultural wages board?

Tony Blair: Because the agricultural wages board has enormous support from agricultural workers in the industry who fear that if the board is not there, their wages may be put down unfairly. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's question implies that he supports abolishing the agricultural wages board—

Hugh Robertson: indicated assent.

Tony Blair: He does. I do not know whether his question implies that he does not support the minimum wage.

Hugh Robertson: indicated assent.

Tony Blair: He does support the minimum wage. Well, we are getting somewhere! If he supports the minimum wage, I suggest that it is sensible to support a board that makes sure that there is a floor underneath agricultural workers' wages.

Tony Banks: May I ask the Prime Minister to join me and most of the House in sending good wishes to the England team for the match against Macedonia—[Hon. Members: XAnd Wales."]—and Wales, and Northern Ireland? Will he take this opportunity to make his feelings clear about the appalling racist abuse of Ashley Cole and Emile Heskey in the match against Slovakia at the weekend? Will he use his good offices to impress upon UEFA that unless there is a vigorous and sustained campaign against racism in European football, it will not go away? The cancer does not cure itself.

Tony Blair: I am sure that the whole House joins in the good wishes to the English team tonight, and of course to the Welsh team also—and when we get round to it, to the Scottish team and the Northern Ireland team as well. My hon. Friend makes a serious point about racism. We must make sure that that does not come back into the game in our own country. Also, I hope that the football authorities take very firm action in respect of any country where such racism rears its head. The scenes in Slovakia were disgraceful. I think that people understand that, and I hope that the authorities there take the appropriate action against those responsible.

John Taylor: How can it be right to punish the law-abiding parties in Northern Ireland by suspending the institutions, rather than excluding the only offending party, Sinn Fein-IRA?

Tony Blair: There are two reasons why we took the decision that we did. The first reason is that to have said that the IRA had come off ceasefire would have been a serious thing to do, and we had to weigh carefully the consequences of that. The second reason is that, without support from the nationalist community as well, an exclusion motion would not have succeeded, so we would have been back to suspension in any event. We do not want the suspension to last. We hope that we can find a way forward, but we have reached the crunch point where people must decide whether they are committed to exclusively peaceful means or not. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time, and he will recall that the previous Conservative Government faced tricky and difficult issues over these matters, particularly concerning the IRA. I hope that we get some understanding from the Opposition that we are trying to negotiate our way through an immensely difficult situation. If one looks back over the five years of the peace process in Northern Ireland, one sees, I believe, that, despite everything, it has brought considerable gains to the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is worth making every effort to secure a way of putting the agreement back together again and moving it forward. The only basis on which that will happen is if it is made very clear by everyone, in word and deed, that exclusively peaceful and democratic means are the only way that people can be in government.

Andy King: My right hon. Friend has received many letters from the people of Rugby and the surrounding constituencies of Warwickshire and Coventry strongly opposing the building of a giant new airport in the green belt between Rugby and Coventry—an option that has no support whatever in the midlands. Does he agree that the best way forward is to use our existing airports better and more wisely to minimise environmental damage and achieve truly sustainable development in air transport for many years ahead?

Tony Blair: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concerns, which he has articulated on behalf of his constituency. The reason that the issue arises is that we had to put forward all the options. We have not made decisions on any of those options at all. That will come when we publish the White Paper on the air transport plan some time next year. I assure my hon. Friend that we will listen carefully to the points that he and others are making.

Alex Salmond: In terms of the Prime Minister's responsibilities for upholding standards in public life, does he accept that if a political party fails to declare the proceeds of a fundraising dinner attended by a major drugs dealer who is subsequently shot dead, it might be in danger of bringing politics into disrepute? Will the Prime Minister call for and support an investigation by the Electoral Commission under the relevant legislation, and will he discuss these matters with Mr. Jack McConnell?

Tony Blair: As has been said, if there are such allegations, they should be made to the appropriate authorities, which will investigate them.

Bill Tynan: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, night after night in our communities, citizens are subjected to not only mental but physical pressure from the yob culture? Will he send today the strongest and clearest message not only to the victims, but to the thugs and louts who engage in this practice? Will he assure the House that he will make this issue a priority, ensure that adequate funding is available and return communities to the law-abiding and decent people who live in fear at the present time?

Tony Blair: I know that the Scottish Executive has proposals to deal with the issue, including the investment of a significant sum in tackling antisocial behaviour. I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend that one of the biggest problems that local communities face is the degree of antisocial behaviour that occurs. That is why we introduced antisocial behaviour orders and are now piloting fixed-penalty notices. I believe that the Queen's Speech will outline certain other measures that will allow us to tackle antisocial behaviour in any way we can. In particular, it is right that the Government deal with the issue and we are committing a massive amount to inner-city regeneration and have introduced the new deal, the working families tax credit and sure start. We are entitled to demand in return proper, respectful and law-abiding behaviour. That is what the vast majority of people in communities such as his want, and that is what we are determined to implement.

Duty Free Imports (Personal Use)

Peter Duncan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a system of prior approval by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for duty free imports for personal use; and for connected purposes.
	I arrived at this place on the Order Paper today in an attempt to rationalise four increasingly strained forces in the arena of personal imports to the United Kingdom. They concern the importation of duty free goods and goods on which duty has been paid abroad. First, the United Kingdom is part of the European Union, where jobseekers, residents and businesses can come and go throughout what was meant to be a truly free market. We have a right to cross our borders into the EU and are, indeed, encouraged to do so. I remain one of those who still believe passionately in the Common Market principle.
	Secondly, the increasing use by all Governments of indirect taxation that has dramatically exceeded that levied elsewhere in the EU is a process that has been accelerated by the remorseless promotion of stealth taxes since 1997. That has created the incentive to make legitimate use of cross-channel travel to import goods—principally alcohol and tobacco—for personal use. I can think of few other reasons for voluntarily spending a never-ending period on an overcrowded ferry on a dark October evening on the English channel. If the UK Government had not seen those goods as a soft target for taxation, the existing price differential would have been substantially reduced.
	Thirdly, we are seeing the Customs and Excise equivalent of military overstretch. Customs budgets are often seen as a soft touch and the codewords Xintelligence-led operations" are substitutable for reduced manpower, which covers the country so as to leave the stable door ajar for covert smuggling operations. Resources are at a premium, as is illustrated by the recent revelation in an inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs of the fact that the service in Scotland does not have access to one detection sniffer dog. Instead, that dog is on Xintelligence-led standby" from Hull or Manchester.
	The Bill is intended to focus scarce resources on the genuine problem: organised smuggling operations. The price differential has created a much more sinister and despicable trade. Hon. Members will know of many independent retailers in their constituencies who are paying the price of regular smuggling for resale. Consistent abuse by individuals and groups of free-flowing traffic between the United Kingdom and our neighbours puts at risk the future of many independent businesses and UK jobs.
	The regional media in the south-east of England were surprised that an hon. Member with a constituency that is a long way north of Watford raised the issue. They should know that the effects of illegal smuggling reach far beyond the south-east. Convenience stores and supermarkets in Newton Stewart and Stranraer are only too aware of the effect on their businesses. Legitimate sales are all but eliminated in some areas of the country by illegitimate trade in smuggled goods. For example, smuggled goods account for more than 20 per cent. of cigarette consumption in the UK as opposed to the 7 per cent. of legitimately imported goods. It is little wonder that smoking started to increase again in 1997. The low street price of smuggled tobacco proves a dangerous attraction to the new generation of vulnerable young smokers.
	Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is doing what it can to restrict the illegal trade, but with increasingly limited resources. It is struggling to make the distinction between legitimate import and illegal trafficking. The Bill would introduce a voluntary procedure and assist Customs and Excise in making the distinction.
	The system's premise is simple. United Kingdom residents who want to visit the continent with the principal or secondary aim of bringing back goods for personal use should be able to do that. If the goods are genuinely for personal use, those people are most likely to use a system of prior notification. Conversely, those who undertake illegal activity are least likely to notify Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of their trip in advance. If Customs officers used the system properly, they could prioritise their scarce resources and concentrate on travellers who had not given prior notification of their trip.
	With the House's agreement, I shall engage with Customs and Excise to develop a workable system of prior notification. It must be administratively simple and must facilitate easy analysis by officers at the ports.
	If prior notice were given of a trip by the same vehicle on three separate occasions in three months, the service might deem it suitable to use the information as sufficient intelligence for stopping and inspecting it. If someone gave prior notification of one trip in five years, perhaps to gather continental beverages for one of those 40th birthday parties for which Galloway is famous, it would be reasonable to assume that Customs resources would be best targeted elsewhere. Surely that is simply common sense.
	Hon. Members know about the publicity that surrounds ordinary members of the public who have vehicles confiscated when apprehended by Customs and Excise officers. It would be much more straightforward to identify those who were attempting to smuggle for commercial gain if we could presume in favour of those who had gone out of their way to inform the authorities in advance of their journey. A constituent of mine, Mr. Andy Shiells from the Machars in Galloway found no such system in place. He wanted to do the decent thing and advise Customs and Excise of the trip in advance, but was unable to do that. The Bill will put that right.
	I do not propose an increase in state surveillance or support for big brother. Curiously, the system needs to be voluntary to be most effective. The Bill would not compromise the right of Customs officers to inspect anyone entering the United Kingdom, pre-registered or not. They must retain the ability to act on intelligence. However, the House must accept that more accurately targeted resources are increased resources, at no cost to the taxpayer.
	The Bill is not a smugglers' charter. It is intended to provide a system whereby honest and law-abiding UK citizens who want to import for personal use can do that without feeling like criminals. They have a right to use the Common Market, just as those who try to abuse the system have the right to expect that our limited Customs and Excise resources will focus on their activities.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Duncan, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Paul Goodman, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Mark Field and Mr. Christopher Chope.

Duty Free Imports (Personal Use)

Mr. Peter Duncan accordingly presented a Bill to create a system of prior approval by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for duty free imports for personal use; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 194].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[18th Allotted Day]

Department for Education and Skills

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses its sympathy to the pupils, parents and teachers affected by the fiasco of grading this year's 'A' level exams; condemns Ministers at the Department for Education and Skills for proceeding with the new system of 'A' levels in the face of expert advice; regrets the confusion this has caused in university entrance both this year and next; calls for the Qualification and Curriculum Authority to be made independent of Government; further regrets the confusion caused by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills over her powers on exclusion appeal panels; expresses its sympathy to the teachers at the Glyn Technology School in Ewell for the problems this has caused; calls for the end of the current system of appeals panels and the introduction of the option of enforceable contracts between schools and parents; notes that the problems for schools caused by the backlog at the Criminal Records Bureau are continuing; regrets that there is no sign of a reduction in truancy numbers; and further notes that the Government has failed to hit its targets on primary school attainment and that the Secretary of State has failed to repeat the pledge of her predecessor to resign if these targets were not reached.
	It is right and proper that this House should, for the second day in a row, be dealing with the failures of the Department for Education and Skills, because those failures spread far beyond the A-level fiasco that we discussed yesterday. Wherever we look in our education system, from primary schools to universities, we find missed targets, demoralised teachers and angry students. Ministers' complacent performance over A-levels shows how far they are out of touch with the reality of the world of education. They should know that there is a rising tide of discontent among those who work hard to keep our schools, colleges and universities going. Heads and teachers are doing their best to help children. Ministers delude themselves that they can provide the solution. Mostly, Ministers are the problem. Non-stop intervention, meddling, pointless initiatives and meaningless targets have left teachers crying out to be allowed to get on with their job of teaching.
	The underlying problem with this culture of non-stop intervention is that, too often, there is no substance behind it. The most telling phrase to describe the Secretary of State's approach is the description of her secondary school policy as being like a doughnut, in that
	XIt has icing on the top and nothing in the centre."
	It is a telling criticism, because it comes from her deputy, the Minister for School Standards, talking privately—or so he thought—to Sir William Stubbs. Hell hath no fury like a senior official sacked as a scapegoat. I look forward to hearing more of the views of the Minister for School Standards on his Secretary of State's policies.
	Let us look in detail at some of the Secretary of State's recent interventions. There are five areas that need to be covered in this debate. Those involve the serious problems that have hit the Department since the House rose for the summer at the end of July, so this is just two and a half months' worth of disasters. There are many more, and I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House will want to add to the list during this short debate.
	Let us start with the most extraordinary failure of the Secretary of State: the mess that she has helped to create at the Glyn technology school in Ewell, where an appeals panel has insisted that two boys excluded for issuing death threats to a teacher should be let back into the school. This is an extraordinary failure because she has managed to make a bad situation worse, even though almost no one disagrees with her. Of course the two boys should not be let back into the school. What they did to the teacher concerned was a disgrace, and I am not surprised that the head and the other staff feel as strongly as they do. But if ever there was a time for quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, it was last week at the Glyn technology school.
	The parents have legal rights—because of the appeals panel system that we have just heard the Prime Minister defending—and they are insisting on exercising them. Instead of quietly helping the school and the local education authority, however, the Secretary of State saw the chance for some easy headlines about how tough she is. She must have known that she had no power to back up her tough talk. All that she succeeded in doing was to raise the temperature, so that there is still no solution.
	Councillor Kay Hammond, who is now responsible for sorting out this mess, summed up the effect of the Secretary of State's intervention. [Hon. Members: XShe is a Tory."] Labour Members are complaining that Kay Hammond is a Tory, as if that makes a difference. It is a great shame that Government Members are playing politics when a councillor is trying to solve a difficult problem in a good local school that is threatened by a national crisis.
	Kay Hammond wrote to the Secretary of State saying that her intervention
	Xwas not helpful because we were trying as a matter of urgency to find a way forward in a very difficult situation."
	She went on to say:
	XUnfortunately, all the attention, exacerbated by"
	the Secretary of State
	Xacting beyond her powers, has made Surrey's job almost impossible at present."
	That is a damning indictment of the right hon. Lady, even though she has acted in a way that all of us would support. No one in the House thinks that those boys should be back in that school, but Surrey county council has been trying to act effectively, and not jump on a bandwagon, as the Secretary of State did.
	In the spirit of inclusiveness that pervades the Conservative party these days, I offer the Secretary of State some suggestions of positive action that she could take to avoid this mess in the future. First, she should get rid of appeals panels. Even without the bad decisions that they reach, they are expensive, legalistic and take too long to come to a decision. I agree with the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers that these panels should go. Heads and governors should have the power over discipline in a school. If the heads and governors get an exclusion process seriously wrong, the local education authority should be the appeal point. [Interruption.]
	Secondly, I offer the Government another of the policies that we unveiled last week. [Interruption.]

Estelle Morris: That is an interesting new policy. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Conservative policy is not, as I had thought until a minute ago, to abolish appeals panels, but to make the LEA the appeals panel instead of the present independent panel?

Damian Green: The hon. Lady should listen. Of course, we want to abolish appeal panels, but a due process must be operated. [Interruption.] There could be a simple appeal to the LEA. The right hon. Lady seems to be particularly ignorant of her own policies, as she misbriefed the Prime Minister, who looked extremely foolish when he claimed that the appeals panels that were established under a Conservative Government had the power to do what they have done, which was not true. That was done under an Act that the right hon. Lady introduced.

Estelle Morris: rose—

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady has had her chance. What the Government have been saying all along as an argument against the abolition of appeals panels, which we support, is that that would bring the courts into the equation.

Estelle Morris: rose—

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady should contain herself for a second. As I understand it, the Government's objection to the abolition of appeals panels is that that would bring in the courts. That is a ludicrous objection, because it is impossible for the courts to be much more legalistic than the appeals panels already are. She must know, as I do, of head teachers who have had to spend in excess of #20,000 on individual appeals. We believe that that #20,000 would be better spent on books, teachers and equipment in our schools.
	The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do, that if we are to avoid a legal process, which is expensive, bureaucratic and takes a long time, in law there needs to be an appeal in case the process is wrong. The simplest and cheapest way is for the LEA to carry out the appeal. I do not know why she objects to that.

Estelle Morris: Can we be clear about this new policy, which is being developed on the hoof? Having given LEAs the power to carry out the exclusion appeal hearing, will the hon. Gentleman also give them the right to overrule decisions of the head teacher and the governing body?

Damian Green: Only if the process is wrong. The right hon. Lady should have listened to me. [Interruption.] I can tell that the amount of legal knowledge among Government Members is less than it should be. Like every MP, she should be aware of the powers of people such as ombudsmen, who cannot take hearings of fact but can take hearings on legal processes. The difference should be clear to every Member of Parliament, but it appears not to be clear to Labour Members. I can only assume that none of them has ever —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) must be heard.

Damian Green: I can only assume that no Labour Member has ever taken up a constituent's case with an ombudsman, and that the simple difference between problems with process and problems with fact has therefore never occurred to any Labour Member.

Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I want to make some progress.
	Let me offer the Government another of the policies that we unveiled last week. Why does the Secretary of State not allow heads, if they wish, to insist on binding contracts with parents setting out their schools' disciplinary codes? Parents would then know that they had some responsibility for their children's behaviour even when they were inside the school gates.
	Both those policies would have a beneficial effect on situations such as the one affecting Glyn school, and either would be more effective in the long run than the Secretary of State's talking tough when she cannot act tough.
	That was just one of the October crises, but let us move on to one of last month's horrors—the failure of some schools to open for the start of term because of a backlog at the Criminal Records Bureau. I am aware that that is partly a Home Office problem. If the Secretary of State is feeling sore about her predecessor and what he has done for her reputation, let me assure her that I shall come to the primary school targets in a moment. The real scandal of the Criminal Records Bureau, however, is that things are getting worse. The backlog is now at a record high. Errors have led to 100 people being wrongly accused of having a criminal past. Thousands of applications have been stuck in the CRB system for up to seven months, and nearly 4,000 completed checks have been disputed by applicants.
	The problems that that is causing are particularly acute in education. One of the teacher supply agencies, Time Plan, has said that it still awaits the results of dozens of CRB checks. Local education authorities have experienced delays as well. Essex county council has 400 outstanding applications, 50 of which were submitted during last April and May. Even by the standards of this Government and this Department, that is spectacular incompetence.
	The Secretary of State is getting used to apologising. Another person to whom she should apologise is Donna Naseby of Whitley Bay, who has been unable to open her day nursery on time because her CRB disclosure took 15 weeks to arrive. We have all sat here for some years listening to the Government explaining how important early-years education is, but that same Government, through their own inadequacy and bureaucracy, are preventing nurseries from opening.
	The Secretary of State might also like to apologise to a teacher who has written to us from Daventry. I hope Ministers will listen, as they say that they are in favour of teachers. This teacher writes that he has done
	X20 years unblemished service as a teacher and . . . passed the threshold for enhanced pay."
	He writes
	XIn August my name was removed in error from the Northants supply teachers list, the LEA informed me that to be restored to the list I must be checked by the CRB, and to add to the insult, pay the fee. On August 30th I took the completed Form and various credentials to"
	the relevant building
	Xwhere they were checked by a clerk and the Form taken in . . . On or about the 26th September I received a letter . . . asking for more proof of identity. I returned the necessary documents on the 30th September . . .
	I telephoned the CRB this morning"—
	the letter is dated 8 October—
	Xand was told I would have to wait a further 6 weeks! Without the Certificate Northants Schools will not want to employ me as a Supply Teacher. I have therefore had no opportunity of working for Northants since the commencement of the new school year, and for at least the next 6 weeks, making 3 months in all. I am apparently not entitled to unemployment benefit and cannot improve my Teachers pension."
	If the Government are presiding over crises like that, they should be apologising to more people than A-level students.

Roger Casale: Whether we are talking about appeals panels, AS-levels or extra resources for literacy and numeracy, does not the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party—as we heard from its leader a few moments ago—amount to little more than XScrap it, scrap it, scrap it"? As his party's education spokesman, has the hon. Gentleman anything positive to say about raising education standards? If he has, when will he get on with saying it?

Damian Green: This party has many things to say about raising standards, the first of which is that we need better standards of discipline in our schools. We will provide that by supporting heads and teachers with home-school contracts—which, had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have just heard me recommend to the Government—by scrapping appeals panels and by allowing students in class to learn and not be disrupted by a small minority of disruptive pupils.

Andrew Lansley: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the Criminal Records Bureau, he should recall that the public may have appreciated this matter over the summer to a much greater extent than beforehand, not least because of events in Cambridgeshire. However, it should have been amply evident to the Government that things were going wrong and that action was not being taken. Cambridgeshire county council wrote to the chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau in March. I had correspondence with Ministers in July. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) had a debate in July. Ministers blithely worked their way towards disaster in August and September without taking a grip, just as they have done on so many other issues.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I suspect that Members of this House on both sides have heard tales about the problems with the CRB. I know that the teaching unions alerted the Department as long ago as last April that a crisis was coming. Extraordinarily, no one in the Department appeared to grasp the basic fact that the school year starts in September and that more teachers need to be processed in August than in any other month of the year. It was only in August that the Department panicked and took one decision, followed by a flatly contradictory one when the Secretary of State got back from holiday in September and realised that many schools had not opened. It was a classic case of how not to do it.

Phil Hope: I have just been on the phone to a number of teenagers in my constituency who recently passed their A-levels. They were watching Prime Minister's Question Time. They were absolutely shocked and furious to hear the grades that they achieved described as not being worth the paper they were written on. One of them received four grade As at AS-level and three grade As at A2-level. Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity, on behalf of the Conservative party, to dissociate himself from those remarks and apologise to the thousands of teenagers slandered by the Leader of the Opposition?

Damian Green: The people who should be apologising are the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for what they have done to the A-level system. For 50 years, A-levels were the gold standard in education in this country. In five years, the Government have managed to destroy that gold standard.
	The Criminal Records Bureau was the second disaster. The third disaster that the Government have had in the last two and a half months is in their truancy policy. On 9 October, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)—who sits here, quietly chuntering to himself—announced yet another range of tough measures on truancy, to follow the last range of tough measures on truancy that he announced on 18 June. By coincidence, this latest tough package was released on the same day as the new truancy figures, which showed that, despite all their initiatives, the Government have completely failed to cut truancy at all.
	According to the Government's own figures, exactly the same number of half-days are lost through unauthorised absence as in 1997–98. The Government have made no progress, despite the fact that one of their first promises was a drastic cut in truancy. In December 1998, in the comprehensive spending review public service agreements—on which the Prime Minister was so keen a few moments ago—the Government promised a reduction by one third in school truancy by 2002.
	As 2002 approached, the Government realised that they were going to miss the target. A sensible Government would have taken some measures to ensure that they hit the target. Not this Government; when they see that they are going to miss a target, they change the target, which is what they did. They dropped the 1998 target, hoping that no one would notice; sadly for them, we did. They replaced it with a target to reduce truancy by 10 per cent. from the 2002 level; the House will recall that that there has been no reduction in that level since 1997, which was the previous target. The Government's policy on truancy would be laughable were it not so serious.
	The director of Truancy Call, a charity dealing with truants, revealed that, on a typical school day, some 50,000 children are playing truant in this country. That is a genuinely terrifying statistic. If the Government took some effective measures against truancy, they would probably do more than anything else to stop too many vulnerable young people getting on the conveyor belt to crime. Sadly, they have failed to take any effective measures, and their response to that failure is not to try to find effective measures, but to fiddle the figures.

Mark Hendrick: What measures would the hon. Gentleman take if he were the Minister responsible?

Damian Green: The most important long-term measure that we learned about from other countries—[Interruption.] The Government are addicted to short-term measures—a fact never better displayed than by that reaction. The best thing to do for most of those 50,000 children is to make school relevant to them. The biggest historic failure in our education system, going back some 100 years, is that of vocational education. We need to provide excellent, world-class education for the less academic children, as well as the more academic. Frankly, under successive Governments we have failed to do that. This is one of the most important long-term changes that we need. One hugely beneficial side-effect would be that the school day would be relevant to all pupils at all levels of academic attainment. That is the long-term way to treat truancy.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I have given way enough in the past few minutes.
	The fourth recent disaster to hit the Secretary of State was the primary school attainment figures, which were published last month. They showed that the Government missed their key targets for English and for mathematics among 11-year-olds. On this, I have some sympathy with her personal plight. When the Home Secretary was doing her job, and he made his now notorious pledge that he would resign if the targets were not hit this year, we all knew that, by 2002, somebody else would be carrying the can. Sadly for the Secretary of State, it is her.
	There are three key issues that the Secretary of State could, and needs to, address. First, in her tough-talking moments she has been prone to saying that heads and teachers in failing schools will have to go. So if schools do not hit their targets, someone takes responsibility and goes, but if Ministers do not hit their targets, no one takes responsibility and no one goes. The next time the Prime Minister complains about cynicism in modern Britain, he might like to look close to home to find some of the causes. Secondly, since the Secretary of State is not hitting the existing targets, what on earth is the point in setting new and more difficult ones for future years? Can she tell the House what she proposes to do if those targets are missed as well?
	Thirdly, the right hon. Lady will see that improvements in both English and mathematics have completely stalled in the past three years. The figures have barely moved, and about a quarter of our children leave primary schools unable to read, write or count at an acceptable level. I dare say that she and I would agree that that is completely unacceptable. If we look at the figures for 2000, 2001 and 2002, we see that they have not moved. Literacy and numeracy hours have done some good, but it looks as though radical change will be needed to move the attainment figures from the plateau on which they are stuck. So far, her Department has shown no sign of recognising that the figures are stuck, and that radical change is needed to achieve anything better. This debate provides a chance for the Secretary of State to make it clear that she sees the scale of the challenge. So far, all that we have had from the Government is bluster, but when a quarter of our young people are leaving primary school unable to read, write or count properly, that is a national disgrace.
	The fifth and most serious of the current crises is, of course, the A-level fiasco.

Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to the proportion of 11-year-olds who did not meet basic standards in mathematics and reading when we took over?

Damian Green: Rather than bobbing up and down with Whips' questions, the hon. Gentleman should listen to what I just said. I said that the literacy and numeracy hours have done some good. The figures went up from the mid-1990s to 2000. Since 2000, the English figures have stuck at 75 per cent., and the mathematics figures have fluctuated between 71 and 73 per cent. [Interruption.] Government Back Benchers can chunter as much as they like, but the fact is that we are stuck with a quarter of our primary school pupils being inadequately educated. If they are happy with that, fine, but I am not, and Britain's parents will not be happy with it either.
	The fifth and most serious of the current crises is, of course, the A-level fiasco. Yesterday, the Secretary of State tried the old trick of defending herself against a charge that no one in the House was making—that she interfered personally to fiddle the grades—while trying to ignore the charges made in this House and by many teachers, parents and pupils. Those charges are that she presided over a system that was bound to fail, and that she had been warned that it would fail.
	The Secretary of State said yesterday that no one had warned her. I remember Nick Tate, the QCA's former chief executive, saying that the QCA had warned her that the system was about to fail. She rejects the charge that she ignored the warnings, because she has no defence against it, and she has no defence against it because it is true.
	Today's reports on the latest Tomlinson findings must make fairly grim reading for the Secretary of State. The editorial in today's edition of The Independent stated:
	XThis episode has shredded confidence in the integrity of England's exam system",
	and I am delighted to read that newspaper saying what I said yesterday.
	Most serious of all, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition noted in Prime Minister's questions, is that Mike Tomlinson said yesterday that schools are left with no idea of what an A-level is. The Secretary of State is fond of quoting the parts of Mike Tomlinson's report of which she approves. I hope that she has analysed carefully what he said yesterday. He challenged the Government over A-level reforms by warning that the qualification was clouded in confusion. He said that it was Xamazing" that schools were in the third year of the changes brought in under Curriculum 2000, yet still did not know what examiners expected of students. I think that he is being especially polite.

Mike Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Leader of the Opposition that today's A-levels are worthless?

Damian Green: That is not what my right hon. Friend said. Mike Tomlinson has said that schools are left with no idea of what an A-level is. If this Government believe that they have not damaged the reputation of that exam—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the Chamber, and hon. Members should be listening to the debate, not shouting.

Damian Green: If Labour Members seriously believe that the Government have not damaged the reputation of A-levels, I can only suggest that they visit secondary schools when they return to their constituencies. They will find a lot of angry students and teachers, who feel that they have been working very hard for a long time but that they have had their efforts undermined by an incompetent Government.
	The point that Mike Tomlinson makes is that the QCA had direct responsibility for the problems, and I think that that point commends itself to the Secretary of State. Where the Secretary of State is at her most evasive is in denying that she is responsible for the QCA. It is perfectly simple. If she can sack the chairman of the QCA, then she is responsible for the QCA. If the QCA is responsible for the A-level scandal, she is responsible for that scandal. That is the inescapable conclusion of all the facts that have come out so far.
	I hope that the Secretary of State is suitably embarrassed by what she said about the QCA as recently as 17 June. She said:
	XI am sure that the talented staff at the QCA can meet these tough challenges for the benefit of pupils, teachers and parents. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of its Chairman, Sir William Stubbs. Sir William has played a key role in putting the QCA in the position where it can reform for the future."
	That is what the Secretary of State thought in June. By September, when she needed to save her own skin, she sacked the very official to whom she had paid tribute.
	What brings all those disasters together is the characteristic new Labour cocktail of centralisation, meddling from Whitehall, and lack of trust in the professionals on the ground. The Government fiddle the figures when they can, and ignore them when they cannot. They show a touching faith that a press release equals ministerial action. Our schools deserve much more than the Government offer. Heads deserve real power to run their schools. Teachers deserve to be trusted to know how to teach. Pupils deserve an exam system that they can trust, and parents deserve to know that their children will be safe from disruption in the classroom. The present Government are failing on all those counts, and their failures are a betrayal of young people across the country.
	I commend the motion to the House.

Estelle Morris: I beg to move, To leave out from XHouse" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	Xapplauds the priority the Government attaches to education and congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on her excellent leadership of the education system; notes the current record levels of sustained investment in education with an increase from #41.6 billion in 2001–02 to #57.8 billion in 2005–06; welcomes rising standards and progress being made in schools up and down the country, congratulating in particular all those who played a part in achieving the best ever results in literacy and numeracy for 11 year olds, with 75 per cent. making the grade in English and 73 per cent. in mathematics compared with less than a half in 1997; welcomes the importance the Government attaches to tackling indiscipline and non-attendance at schools; notes that while the Criminal Records Bureau continues to improve its performance, the Department's interim XList 99" measures are allowing schools to operate with a full complement of staff; expresses its sympathy for the pupils, parents and teachers who have been affected by the recent 'A' level grading problems; but congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for her decisive action in setting up an independent inquiry under Mike Tomlinson to restore confidence in the exam system."
	I was not impressed by the words—many of them—of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). Many people who work in our schools and many parents whose children are educated in our schools will not recognise the picture that he painted.

Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady always says that.

Estelle Morris: I always say that because it is always the case.
	Before we go on to the specific allegations, let us clarify what progress has been made during the past five to six years and what we have achieved in partnership with our teachers, governors and all who work in our schools. That achievement was made against the background of massively increased investment in our schools. By 2005–06, we shall have invested more than #1,100 extra in every school pupil, and every Member of Parliament will be able to see evidence in their constituency of the huge capital investment that we have made—not only in primary and secondary schools, colleges of further education and universities but in nurseries, where previously they did not exist, and in sure start. Almost all three and four-year-olds now have a nursery place.
	All that investment and leadership from the centre has brought real results. Nearly 500,000 five to seven-year-olds are no longer in classes of 30. We made that pledge in 1997 and we have met our target. Ofsted notes that almost seven classes in 10 are good, compared with four in 10 only five years ago. People with children in classes where Ofsted judges that the quality of teaching is better are glad that a Labour Government are in power and are showing leadership.
	More than nine in 10 schools have made satisfactory or better progress since their last inspection. Fewer schools are going into special measures: last year, there were 137, compared with 230 in the previous year. Ofsted rates the current generation of teachers as the best ever.
	I am not complacent about that, but I take pride in the contribution that the Government have made, as a partner in the education service, in ensuring that none of our infants is in classes of more than 30 and that all our four-year-olds and 70 per cent. of our three-year-olds have the chance of early years provision. Yes, a quarter of our 11-year-olds have still not reached the standards in reading and writing that we expect of them, but only six years ago half of them had not done so.
	That is a massive improvement. Not only the Government but the whole nation should be proud of the literacy and numeracy strategies. They are world class and world leading. They are admired throughout the world. I do not think we could find anyone in the education system—head teacher, teacher or parent—or in the wider community who would not give thanks for the introduction of the literacy and numeracy strategies.
	Yes, the strategies have stalled, but they did so after increases of 12 percentage points for maths and 11 percentage points for English over five years. The question is: what do we do now? If the hon. Member for Ashford had chosen to examine the figures in a little more depth, he would have found that each year we assessed the results not only for literacy and numeracy in general for each of their component parts; that in the next year we invested more money, training and support; and that we often saw progress.
	It is interesting that two or three years ago, writing standards were falling behind, whereas those for reading were increasing. What did we do? We made extra investment, adjusted the strategies and provided extra training. What happened? Writing improved. However, reading has stalled. What that reveals is not a political point but an educational one: the capacity of the system to concentrate on writing, which we required, while maintaining the necessary focus on reading.
	As a politician, I do not have an answer to that problem, but we are looking into it. We know that we attained higher levels for writing. We know that previously we reached higher levels for reading. The task is to build capacity into the system and to ensure that heads, teachers and all those who work with them can maintain their focus on both reading and writing. That is how we shall move closer to our target.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Estelle Morris: I shall finish dealing with this issue before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
	The literacy and numeracy issue is really difficult. No generation of educationists, nor any previous Government, have ever even tried to crack the problem of people leaving our education system without the basic skills. That is why 7 million adults do not have the reading and number skills that we would expect of 11-year-olds. We are making a good attempt. We are investing the money and our approach is evidence based. We are working with those in the profession, whom I thank. We have made immeasurable and massive progress. No, we are not there, but I would tell the hon. Member for Ashford one thing: we will not give up, and we will continue to invest and to try until we have moved even further towards our target.

Chris Grayling: The most recent research into why teachers are leaving the profession says:
	XThe resignation rate from schools is rising sharply"—
	it has risen by 4 per cent. since 1999. It also says that nearly 40 per cent. of those leaving the profession cite Government initiatives as one of the reasons that they are going. Does the right hon. Lady think that our education system may have stalled because so many experienced teachers are leaving the profession?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman will also know, if he is into reading research, that even more people are now joining the profession, and they do so knowing what it is about. They see the investment that the Government are making, the literacy and numeracy strategies raising standards and the excellence in cities scheme, which is beginning to close the gap in achievement levels between children in inner cities and elsewhere. That is why we have more teachers in the profession than at any time since the early 1980s. I am proud of that, but, equally, I take the challenge of keeping people in the profession.
	I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong about this, but if my memory serves me right—I do not have the figure in front of me—it is true to say that five years after teaching 80 per cent. of those who have completed their training have taught for some time in the maintained sector. Many teachers who leave school will return after having had time out to raise a family or because they have moved to another part of the country.
	I do not underestimate the nature of the challenge in retaining teachers in our classrooms, but I hope that, in return, the hon. Gentleman will give credit for the fact that we have the best recruitment levels for two decades and that, today, more teachers are serving in our classrooms, teaching our children, than since the start of the 1980s.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Estelle Morris: Not at the moment; I want to move on, because I am sure that the House will want to know of other targets that have been met as well. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to know that our target for the number of 16-year-olds who get five good GCSEs at grades A to C was met a year early. I am sure that, like me, they look forward to the publication of the next set of results tomorrow. I am sure that they will be as pleased as I am that, for the first time, the Government's initiatives—yes, initiatives, but they were funded and training for them was provided, about which I am proud—are the first ones to close the attainment gap in standards in this country.
	More than in any of our competitors in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, this country's under-achievement is linked to poverty and social class. The best thing about the literacy and numeracy and the excellence in cities initiatives is not only that standards increased across the board, but that the attainment gap closed, and they are the first education initiatives of any Government of any political party to achieve that.
	If the hon. Member for Ashford wants to abolish those initiatives, he should say so now, as I believe he has done in the past. Let us make no mistake: taking away initiatives such as literacy and numeracy, key stage 3 and excellence in cities would be at the children's cost because, without those initiatives, teachers would not have the support that they need to do what we want them to do—raise standards across the board.

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Estelle Morris: I will give way, and then I shall make progress on another issue.

Patrick Cormack: I commend much of what the right hon. Lady seeks to do. I particularly commend the Government's new realism in education, but does the right hon. Lady accept that the reason for the crisis that she is seeking to correct is that for many years, not just under Labour Governments, there was a blind pursuit of the comprehensive ideal, which did a great deal to destroy standards and quality in education in this country?

Estelle Morris: All I would say is that the performance of girls has increased in the past couple of decades, as has the number of youngsters who have qualifications enabling them to go on to higher education. That has happened on the back of the comprehensive system, not some rigid selective system that existed previously. I am proud of the comprehensive ideal, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I think that we need to renew it. It has not achieved all that I aspire to. It has not closed the social class gap, and some ethnic groups are achieving below the level at which they should. That is exactly why we talk about reforming the comprehensive principle, while the Prime Minister and I talk about the post-comprehensive ideal.

Phil Willis: Would the Secretary of State therefore agree with the Minister for School Standards, who said in Brighton last week that he regretted the passing of the direct grant grammar schools? Do the Government plan to return those to the state fold?

Estelle Morris: I shall say three things: first, my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards did not say that; secondly, I always agree with him; and, thirdly, we have no plans to introduce the direct grant system.
	I want to move on to the very serious issue of exclusions. It is fascinating that a new Tory policy has been announced only minutes after the Leader of the Opposition sat down and forgot to tell us that the Conservatives believe in appeals hearings after all. I want to correct something that the Leader of the Opposition said during Prime Minister's questions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that appeals panels were introduced in 1986, and the following justification was given in Committee proceedings on the Bill that I presume became the 1987 Act:
	Xa parent may genuinely feel that an authority has taken insufficient notice of the pupil's point of view of the difficulties arising through its endorsement of a decision to expel. The parent may continue to feel that expulsion is unjustified, or the expelled pupil may be at a critical stage of preparation for school-leaving examinations. An alternative school may pose problems of accessibility, or the parent may be unhappy about the curriculum offered by that school."
	That was the justification given by Chris Patten when he spoke about the introduction of appeals panels in a Standing Committee in 1986. He was right. People must have an avenue to seek redress if they feel that injustice has been done. I cannot understand, however, why the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that we took away from the head teacher the right to overrule the appeals panel, as the following was also stated in Standing Committee on 1 July 1986:
	XWe therefore propose that . . . When an authority confirms an expulsion the parent would have a . . . right of appeal . . . Such appeals would be to appeal committees established under section 7 of the Education Act 1980."
	Chris Patten went on to say:
	XNew clause 10 provides that a committee's decision should be binding".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 July 1986; c. 389–90.]
	Would the hon. Member for Ashford like to answer to the House and withdraw the accusation made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's questions?

Damian Green: What my right hon. Friend said was that the Government changed the guidance, which was true.

Estelle Morris: I stand to be corrected when Hansard is published, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Leader of the Opposition said that the appeals panel could not overrule the decision of the head. Chris Patten, who was the Minister at the time, said that the appeals panel decision would be binding.
	Let us move on—instead of going over the quiet words of a quiet man—to consider the more vocal, louder comments of the hon. Member for Ashford, who, to tell the truth, is an equally quiet man. Today, he announced that, although the appeals panel will be abolished, the local education authority will resume the function of hearing appeals from parents. When he announced that, I had an eerie feeling that not one of his Back Benchers knew about it. Now we know what is the definition of a quiet man and a quiet party—it means not telling Back Benchers about the policy before announcing it to the House of Commons.
	Let me be helpful by spelling out what that policy means. It will mean that any parent who disagrees with the judgment of the head that their child should be excluded for any reason will be able to appeal to a local education authority. That is what was said. Let us make no mistake—if we give the local education authority the right to hear the appeal, we have to give them the right to overturn the judgment. If we do not do that, we will take away its power to take a decision.
	I am happy to give way on this issue, so would the hon. Gentleman like to tell us who will sit on the LEA appeal panels? Will they be made up of the teachers who we insist should sit on panels from January next year? If the panel is run by an LEA, will it be made up of local councillors and local education officials? If it is not made up of councillors and education officials, will it be made up of independent members of the public? If it is made up of independent members of the public, I am not sure how it will differ from the independent exclusion panels that we have at the moment.

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady appears incapable of listening. She said that I had just said that any parent would be able to appeal on any matter to the LEA. She knows perfectly well that I did not say that. She was not listening and she wants to hear what she wants to hear. I made a clear difference between process and fact, and that is an obvious point that applies to all appeals to people such as the ombudsmen. She should know that, because she is experienced enough to know the difference. She may be attempting to be malicious, but I am afraid that she will not find that I said what she said I had said.

Estelle Morris: I heard the point about process and fact, but I did not have the slightest idea what the hon. Gentleman was on about. That is why I had to intervene.
	Let me explain what I think stage two of the new policy will be, because the hon. Gentleman has now mentioned guidance.

Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Estelle Morris: No, not at the moment.
	I think that the Opposition's new policy means that not every parent will have the right to go to the LEA to seek the overruling of the head teacher's and governing body's judgment. Some parents will have that right, and others will not. Whether they have the right will depend on guidance written by the hon. Gentleman. If that is the policy, that is fine. However, we have heard all the time from the Opposition that never under any circumstances should the head teacher's judgment be second-guessed because it is absolutely sacrosanct. No matter how the hon. Gentleman tries to get out of it, he has just said that, in certain circumstances that he has not yet described to his Back Benchers, the Government or the public, the head teacher's judgment can be second-guessed by an appeal panel.
	As I said, I always agree with my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. He is absolutely right. The only difference is that, under this Government, the system will be independent whereas under the Tories it will be run by the LEAs. I leave it to people to reach a judgment on that.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Andrew Lansley: rose—

Estelle Morris: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I shall make progress.

Chris Grayling: May I return the Secretary of State to the reality of what has happened? Eighteen months ago, her predecessor wrote to the head teacher of Glyn school after an appeal had been overturned and a pupil had been replaced in the school after exclusion. Her predecessor set out clearly in a letter a number of cases, including those involving violence and the threat of violence, in which a governing body had every right to exclude. However, when the governing body and head teacher of Glyn school put that statement to the test, the system failed them. The system is clearly wrong. The Secretary of State is making small political points, but when will she sort the problem out?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right. I shall read the words from the guidance that was issued to the appeal panels before the last election. It said:
	XWe would normally regard it as inappropriate to reinstate pupils where there has been serious or actual threatened violence to teachers or fellow pupils."
	That is exactly why I made my statement last Thursday. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying—I say it again at the risk of again being accused of interfering—that I back teachers if they are threatened with violence or abuse by any pupil in their school. That should not happen. However, it should be equally clear that, in a natural system of justice in which appeal panels have power, I have no powers to overrule them. The hon. Member for Ashford is suggesting that, if the Tories were ever to return to government, they would take to Secretaries of State the right to overrule an independent appeal panel—in his case, the LEA. That is their policy, but I have described the only way to proceed.
	The process is important and I want to explain my actions on the incident at the school. Whether there are appeals panels and whether they are independent or part of the local education authority, there is still a right in law to go to judicial review whether we like it or not. No hon. Member can change that—unless, of course, there is another policy announcement. In recent years, parents who have not got satisfaction at exclusion appeals hearings have gone to judicial review. No one is saying that that is not the case. If we get rid of appeals panels, which was Tory policy until today, people would seek to pursue the course of natural justice by questioning a decision in the courts. The quickest, most expedient, cheapest and most efficient way to deal with the natural right of a parent to ask for a double check to be made on a key decision is to go to an independent panel, and that is why we support them.
	My right hon. Friend said in Prime Minister's questions that of all the decisions taken by heads, at the end of the day 3 per cent. are overturned. In some cases, such as last week's high-profile case, a decision comes to the public attention. Last week's decision was important. I do not detract from the need to have a national discussion about that because I welcome it. There is nothing wrong with the discussion that the nation had over the weekend. Indeed, it is about time that parents and everyone else in the community joined politicians and educationists in deciding what behaviour we accept from our children in schools. We should make that clear. I made my view clear last week and will continue to do so at every opportunity.

Kevin Brennan: Surely the policy just announced by the Conservative spokesperson on education is even more incoherent when he mentions the local government ombudsman because the ombudsman's decisions have no force over local authorities. He cannot compel them to do anything.

Estelle Morris: That is absolutely right and people would probably end up in court. Perhaps I should not say this, but that process would take far longer than an exclusion panel.
	Let me set out my involvement in the constituency of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) last week. He wrote to me on 7 October, expressing his concern about the case. He had every right to do that. It is a letter that I would expect to receive from a Member of Parliament. It shows a proper process and reflects the fact that the hon. Gentleman expected the Secretary of State to take an interest, offer help and express an opinion. There was nothing to suggest that he did not want my interest in the case to be noted. By the time I heard about the letter on 10 October, someone had taken the case to the media and it had become the focus of national attention. That was the situation by the time I knew of the case and read the letter.
	I am not criticising that—it was natural that the case should cause concern—but the media were already circling the school and trying to discover the identities of the parents and children, and people were giving interviews to the press. The idea that I would say, XNot me, guv. I have no powers and will not express an opinion," is wrong. That is not something that hon. Members will ever hear from this Secretary of State. The case deserved national attention and the nation was entitled to ask the Secretary of State's view.
	I went further than that, as I would do in many circumstances, and not just those that relate to exclusions. I asked my officials to phone Surrey county council and ask whether we could help. I also wanted them to ask whether the process was as speedy as possible given the fact that the public eye was on the school and the boys. I mentioned that for two reasons: first, the school needed to get back to normal and there was a ballot for a teachers' strike the next day; secondly, and of equal importance, the boys' future needed to be settled because they had rights as well. They needed to get back to full time, good quality education.
	That was the nature of my intervention, and it became very public last Thursday and over the weekend because the incident was in the spotlight, but quite honestly it is the bread and butter of my Department's work. It regularly responds to invitations, such as the one that I received from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, in whose constituency the school is situated, to do what it can. Sometimes, in fact quite often, we are asked to give money, while other requests are for us to change legislation or use our influence. On that occasion, we sought to use our influence.

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady rightly says that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) wrote to her on 7 October, and she now tries to muddy the waters. I point out to her that on 10 October she found time to issue her press release and gain publicity, but she did not bother to reply to my hon. Friend until this morning, six days later.

Estelle Morris: I shall let the House into a state secret: I have a marvellous Department, but sometimes it does not reach its targets for replying to letters. Six days exceeds every Whitehall target for replying to letters, and I am very pleased about that.
	The hon. Gentleman should further consider the timing of the statements, which is an important point. One of our most important tasks is to get the standards agenda going and to achieve the desired progress in the education system. What we need to do most is back schools on discipline; collectively, we must make sure that we get that right. I made my statement at about four or five o'clock in the afternoon; I stand to be corrected about the precise time. By the time I made my statement the story had already been reported in the media, and rightly so—I make no criticism of that. It does not matter who gave the story to the media; it is a matter of natural national concern, and we acted completely appropriately.

Chris Grayling: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Estelle Morris: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman because the matter concerns his constituency, but I will not give way again after that.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way to me a second time. We all share the aspiration of sorting out this matter, but may I just explain to her the problem that her intervention caused? By issuing to the media a statement that she had overruled the appeals panel, the Secretary of State raised expectations in the school that the problem had been solved, and 24 hours later those expectations were dashed when the school realised that she did not have the power to overrule. That is the problem that she caused locally.

Estelle Morris: If the hon. Gentleman reads the statement and listens carefully to the comments made that evening by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), he will find that I made it quite clear that I had no powers. I knew that I had no powers and I had been through the matter that afternoon. Sometimes, however, one can just stand up and be counted, and that afternoon I stood up to be counted. I do not care two hoots that criticism followed; it was right for the Secretary of State to stand up and be counted and to use what influence I had. It was right for the Secretary of State to ring Surrey county council and say, XYou know that we have no powers, but can we do anything to help? Could you move as quickly as possible to remedy the situation?"
	I shall say no more about that because I am happy to be judged on my record, on my intervention and on my words, not only by teachers but by parents who want good standards of education and well disciplined schools.
	I have taken far longer than I should have done—

Henry Bellingham: What about A-levels?

Estelle Morris: I will talk about A-levels. Everybody who has got a grade this year should feel proud, and it is worth the paper that it is written on. It was absolutely deplorable, indeed shameful, of the Leader of the Opposition to say that the results are not worth the paper they are written on. I say once more that I have every confidence in yesterday's report by Mike Tomlinson. In addition, I know that all the organisations that brought the complaints to his attention have confidence in the report. I acted swiftly. I made sure that the inquiry was independent. I acted on every one of the recommendations, and I will act on the recommendations that come back from the second part of the inquiry.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Estelle Morris: I have been generous in giving way.
	I want others to have the opportunity to address this subject. Everybody—at least those on the Labour Benches—looks forward to even more amazing policy announcements in the couple of hours ahead.

Phil Willis: It would be easy to use this opportunity merely to throw insults at the Government for their handling of education policy without recognising as a starting point the huge problems that they inherited in 1997. I certainly want to go on record as saying that the Liberal Democrats recognise that there have been some improvements since 1997. The catalogue of improvements that the Secretary of State read out at the beginning of her speech was not due simply to Government policy. It was very much due to the hard work of our teachers, lecturers and everyone in the education world. The Government sometimes accept too much credit for what goes right and totally ignore things when they go wrong.
	Although there was much with which I could agree in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the accusations had a hollow ring when one examined the alternatives presented by the Conservatives in Bournemouth and, indeed, today. In a half-hour speech, there was not a single positive proposal to resolve the issues that have been raised.

Phil Hope: I have been watching the hon. Gentleman discussing the issue of A-levels on various news programmes. While he is putting on record the views of Liberal Democrats, will he dissociate his party from the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who described A-levels as not worth the paper that they were written on? Will he join us as we go to prize-giving evenings at schools to award the certificates to young people in congratulating them on their fantastic hard work?

Phil Willis: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for considering that very soon the Liberal Democrats will be the official Opposition. When we are, we shall not be repeating the outrageous slur made by the quiet man earlier today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Phil Willis: I would like to make a little progress.
	What lies behind this debate is a deep-seated jealousy over the fact that the Labour Government are delivering Conservative policies. That is the truth of it. I ask Labour Members whether even a Thatcher Government would have dared propose such right-wing policies as creating a free market for higher education, breaking up the comprehensive system, introducing performance pay, stripping the last vestiges of power from local education authorities and handing them to private companies, privatising schools, privatising the Criminal Records Bureau and micro-managing our education service from Sanctuary house through a target-led agenda? That is a Thatcherite agenda that Thatcher herself could not introduce, and that is why the Tories are jealous. Labour Members are delivering the Tories' policies.

Julian Lewis: While the hon. Gentleman is in the business of accusing the Government of being Thatcherite, perhaps he might explain why the Liberal Democrats seem to have gone rather socialist. Is it not a fact that the Liberal Democrats were reported in The Times Educational Supplement of 20 September as planning to do away with the curriculum for infant schools and to revert for those up to the age of seven to an educational policy dependent on learning through play? Is that not a reversion to the 1960s socialist policies that did so much damage to the education of our children?

Phil Willis: It is worth coming into the Chamber just to hear the hon. Gentleman's intelligent and articulate interventions. I will send him the whole document, because it is crucial reading material on a serious issue. I strongly believe that we are moving away from quality early-years education by putting youngsters into formal education settings far too early. I make no apology for that view—it is something that I fervently believe. The hon. Gentleman should look at the experience in countries such as Denmark, Sweden or Holland, which have highly advanced early education services. He made a derisory comment about learning through play, but the fact is that all children learn though play. Had he spent a little more time playing as a child, he might have learned a little more.
	The key accusation that the Liberal Democrats would lay at the Government's door is not one of inactivity, but one of paranoia. The Government need to control everything, to manage everything, to trust no one, to seek blind affirmation and to treat criticism with contempt—and, as we have seen today, above all never to accept responsibility when things go wrong. Imagine the outcry if local education authorities, not Capita, had failed to vet 7,000 teachers in time for the start of term. What would have happened—would the LEAs have got a #400 million contract extended? What if the further education sector, not Capita, had made a hash of individual learning accounts resulting in a multi-million pound fraud? Would the sector have received yet more lucrative contracts from the Government? Of course not; yet, in effect, that is what has happened with Capita. Both disasters could have been avoided if the Department for Education and Skills had prepared the contracts' specifications correctly and the Secretary of State had effectively monitored their delivery, but they did not, and that is a significant failure.
	The current fiasco surrounding A-levels is yet another example of the Secretary of State behaving like Pontius Pilate when things go disastrously wrong. There were warnings as early as October 1998 that the new system of post-16 exams was deeply flawed. A 1998 internal report to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority that was sent to Ministers warned that unless the problems were sorted out, they would lead to massive grade inflation or grade fixing. Undeterred, the Government went ahead against all advice. There was chaos in the first year, with modules failing to appear, course materials failing to arrive in schools, and no markers to mark the modules. Our students were treated as little more than guinea pigs in a glorified experiment.
	True to form, the Secretary of State stepped in in 2001—not to apologise or to accept that the situation was the result of her policy, but to take action to cut the number of modules. She said,
	Xthe . . . reforms . . . did not do credit to anybody".—[Official Report, 12 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 954.]
	But they were the Secretary of State's reforms. What was left when the right hon. Lady had cut the number of modules students could take was a system simply for stacking up A-level points. That was the net result. It has thrown the lives of thousands of our students and their teachers and lecturers into confusion, and undermined confidence in the A-level system.
	Let me make it clear to the Secretary of State and the House that the Liberal Democrats fully supported the introduction of AS-levels and A2s. We believed that it was right to broaden the curriculum at that time. Furthermore, we have not accused and will not accuse the Secretary of State or her Ministers of direct interference in the marking or grading process. Rather, we accuse her and her Department of creating a climate in which it was perceived that what was required was the avoidance of any accusation of grade inflation.

Andrew Lansley: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the events of summer 2001, may I put it to him that he does the Secretary of State a slight injustice? The right hon. Lady is quoted on the BBC website as saying at the time
	XAll new exams take time to bed in, but the new AS has had more than its fair share of problems. I regret the extra stresses that have been put on students and their teachers."
	There was at least an expression of regret. However, is it not more significant that the right hon. Lady said at that time—I quote the BBC's report of her remarks—that she was
	Xnow determined to get the reforms right so that A levels could continue as 'a crucial benchmark of quality.'"
	Having said that in July 2001, and considering it from the perspective of October 2002, it seems that the right hon. Lady took responsibility and is now trying to discharge it.

Phil Willis: I apologise to the Secretary of State for not recognising that she did offer a mild apology at the end of 2001. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that from the summer of 2001, when AS-levels went so badly wrong, there was paranoia—I use the word again—within the Department to ensure that grade inflation did not occur at the end of the year.
	It was obvious that when students took a clutch of AS modules, they had the opportunity to resit them if they did not get good enough marks, and therefore get higher marks. They also had the opportunity to drop the modules at which they were not successful. It was obvious also that if 50 per cent. of the marks were to go on AS-levels, we would then have massive grade inflation. That was not because standards were dropped but because the kids followed the system and did better. That was the crux of the issue, and that was the system. It was nothing to do with the QCA or the examination boards. It was entirely the Secretary of State's responsibility. What has happened is the result of her refusing to accept any responsibility and simply passing the blame to the QCA. I think that it is shameful to use Mike Tomlinson's report as the basis for doing that and fundamentally wrong.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No. I want to finish the point.
	This year, there was a quinquennial review of the QCA's work. In June, the report highlighted the confusion of the relationship between Ministers and the authority. That was a central element of the report. In spite of that—this is an example of the incestuous nature of the relationship between the Secretary of State's Department and the authority—it argued for the status quo as it combines the Xappearance" of independence while Xretaining the ear" of Ministers. We cannot have that sort of contradiction and expect to have transparency. Equally, we cannot have a Secretary of State who then distances herself from an organisation that said, following a quinquennial review that reported to her, that it should have an Xappearance" of independence while Xretaining the ear" of Ministers.
	The review went further. It dismissed any possibility of clarifying the relationship. Instead we are promised Xa memorandum of understanding." If there is such a memorandum, we now know that it resulted in complete confusion. However, that is the proposal of the QCA in putting its house in order, together with the Secretary of State.
	We know too that at the heart of the QCA since November 2000, the deputy chief executive and then the chief officer has been a serving senior civil servant seconded from the Department. She may not have been taking orders directly from the Secretary of State but surely she would have been able to convey the appropriate perceptions either to or from the right hon. Lady. I do not believe that a senior civil servant in the Department would be seconded elsewhere and would go to that new venue not knowing the policy of the Department and what it expected.

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me about that last week, and I regret the fact that he has raised it in the House. It is totally inappropriate that civil servants should be attacked in that way, and one has just been attacked. I make it clear that it is a policy not only of my Department, but of the whole of Government, that senior civils are seconded both in and out of Government Departments. Officials in our Department are seconded not only to the QCA, but to Ofsted, the Teacher Training Agency, local authorities and many of our agencies. In that way they gain a better understanding of the needs of the education system. Equally, I have serving civil servants who are seconded from headship, from school advisership and from other Government agencies. I believe that every one of those civil servants carries loyalty to the organisation to which they are seconded and abides by the rules of that organisation. To imply that one of my senior civil servants was not able to do that, or may not have been able to do that, was shameful, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks.

Phil Willis: Methinks the Secretary of State protests too much. That is not what I said, and I do not think that hon. Members understood me to say that. What I am saying to the hon. Lady is that I do not believe that if I went from my headship, which I did on one occasion, and was seconded to another organisation—[Interruption.]—that is wishful thinking—I would not take with me the culture of that organisation. One naturally does that. That is not a slur on civil servants. It is an inevitable outcome of moving from one Department to another. While the Secretary of State is speaking of secondments, perhaps she would explain to the House why, when we cannot have the curriculum and staffing survey done, and when there are not enough senior civil servants to oversee contracts, 22 per cent. of the senior civil servants in the Department are seconded out of the Department. It is an amazing situation.

Andrew Turner: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his comments about stacking up points? I remind him that the Secretary of State told me yesterday, when asked
	XIs an AS-level half an A-level or not?"—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 218.]
	that in some subjects the AS-level would be marginally easier than the A-level standard. That means that one can take six AS-levels, never taking a full A-level, and get the same number of UCAS points as if one had taken three A-levels and passed them at equivalent grades. If that is not devaluation, I do not know what is.

Phil Willis: With due respect, that is an issue for the Secretary of State to answer. I know of no case where a student has stacked up six AS-levels in order to gain the qualification, but that is the logic of what the right hon. Lady said in reply to the hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday, and it is up to her to respond.

Oliver Heald: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, he spoke about the nature of the QCA and the fact that in the quinquennial review it was decided to leave it as it was, in order to retain the ear of the Secretary of State. If that is the case, does he not think it extremely odd that it did not come to the ears of the Secretary of State that all that pressure was being put on the exam boards?

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman could say that; I could not possibly do so, but that is the obvious conclusion. That is where, in this whole episode, we are left hanging in the air. The Secretary of State may feel that she is off the hook, but most people will have concluded otherwise.
	The issue of standards was raised yesterday and the Secretary of State, who usually responds honestly and openly, did not do so on that occasion. It is important that she makes clear her policy on standards before Mike Tomlinson goes through the next part of his inquiry. He has to make recommendations for
	Xsetting, maintaining and judging A-level standards".
	Therefore it must be clear that where students achieve the standard set, they should be awarded the grade. The Secretary of State needs to make it clear in the House that it is the Government's policy that if a student achieves the necessary standard, they get the grade.

Estelle Morris: Of course.

Phil Willis: That clearly was not what happened this year. If that was the case, we would not have looked at the work of 90,000 students and we would not have regraded nearly 2,000 students. If that is the case—I am glad that she said that it was—the Department for Education and Skills should not be put off by the annual wailings of Ruth Lea or successive Conservative Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for Ashford. On 13 August, even before this year's A-level results were published, he called for AS-levels to be scrapped and for an
	Xindependent audit of exam quality".
	He made that call before the results were even published, which is hardly a ringing endorsement for the 250,000 students who had taken their exams. Of course, we saw today the most deplorable example of the quiet man saying after all the anguish of the past two months that students now had certificates that were not worth the paper that they were written on.

Tony Cunningham: I applaud the Liberal Democrats' condemnation of Tory education policy, but I wish that they would pass it on to the Liberal Democrats on Cumbria county council, who are running the council in coalition with the Conservatives.

Phil Willis: I do not know whether I am grateful for that intervention. I do not speak for Cumbria county council and it would be wrong of me to seek to do so.
	Of course, the Government were right to broaden the post-16 curriculum. Indeed, it should be broadened even further, but if that is to be managed, far greater emphasis must be placed on internal assessment. To achieve that, as John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said yesterday in The Guardian, we need to establish credited chartered examiners. I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider that idea, which is not new. Teachers have already been doing similar work in music, drama, art and modern languages, but the proposal is one way of ensuring quality without making teaching the servant of an endless examination system. Alongside the abolition of league tables, the establishment of an independent QCA and the streamlining of the current examination boards into a single awarding body, such a proposal would do much to re-balance the emphasis in our schools towards teaching and learning, rather than testing and audit.
	What would not help, however, is a sudden abandonment of the AS-level and A-level system after two years, as the Conservatives propose. Neither do we want the sudden lurch towards the international baccalaureate at which both the Secretary of State and her Minister for School Standards have hinted. Many schools, but especially FE and sixth form colleges, have invested very heavily in the new AS-level programme. Many colleges are already reporting a downturn in the number of applicants for AS-level courses. A sudden abandonment would create huge problems for the sector.
	The Liberal Democrats hope that, in addition to the Tomlinson report, the Secretary of State will take a much more long-term view of the whole of the 14-to-19 curriculum and examination framework. Simply considering A-levels in isolation from the rest of the 14-to-19 framework would be a huge mistake. We have applauded many of the ideas in the Green Paper on 14 to 19-year-olds, but the sector needs a comprehensive framework of qualifications to underpin its success. It is increasingly clear that a one-size-fits-all examination system is inappropriate, especially when the vast majority of young people stay in full-time education or training until they are 19. Further tinkering as a response to political pressure is simply not acceptable. Now is the time to establish a royal commission to consider this whole vital area, take on board the views of industry, universities, colleges and the rest of the education world and produce a qualifications structure in which all sections of society can have confidence.

Chris Grayling: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be contradicting himself. He said that we should not touch the AS-level and A-level system because our sixth formers need stability, but went on to say that we need to appoint a royal commission with a view to completely overhauling the examination system. What sort of message will that send to the sixth formers who are currently starting their courses?

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who usually makes intelligent interventions, may regret those comments. If he does not believe that there is a crisis of confidence in our examination system, he must have been elsewhere for the past two months. We are all united about the need for a new curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds. [Interruption]. The Liberal Democrats and the principal Opposition are certainly united.
	If we are to introduce much more realistic vocational options, we must have an examination system that meets that aim. The Association of Colleges produced an interesting proposal for an overarching certificate. The Government have introduced the idea of a graduate certificate. We should examine the whole process to ensure the confidence of employers and the education world.
	The debate has been interesting. Doubtless Members of all parties will ask questions about the competence of the Department for Education and Skills. However, what matters is what works for young people, adult learners, the community, and industry and commerce. A discredited system and a Department in which people have no confidence do none of us credit.
	Let us consider higher education policy. Even before the review is published in November, the Minister is going around saying that we should have a market-led higher education system, that universities can go to the wall and merge without any discussion in the House. That discredits the Department and gives us the impression that the Secretary of State is not mistress in her house. The Minister for School Standards is looking for her job and the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education reports to the No. 10 policy unit. Unless we ask Mystic Meg for advice, we are clearly in a mess.

Derek Foster: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on education. He cares and is deeply knowledgeable about the system, unlike the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Tory spokesman. The latter epitomises the problems that the Conservative party is experiencing. He seemed to want to crawl around the minutiae of political debate with a loud hailer. One cannot communicate with the wider public in such a way.

Rob Marris: The quiet man.

Derek Foster: I do not believe that he is a quiet man. It is right to have the debate, and it is right that the Tories tabled the motion and are attempting to hold the Government to account on education. However, they should recognise that they must have a little more vision and breadth of perspective to communicate with the voters, with whom they have failed to communicate.

Chris Bryant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems for the Tories on education is that they do not believe that an A-level or any exam is worth passing unless many others have failed it? As the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) showed today, their message is that competition is the only way to achieve success and improve standards.

Derek Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Innate elitism pervades much of the education system, not only the Conservative party. I entered politics to try to get rid of that, and many people from different parties are dedicated to such an objective.
	One advantage of a long political memory is that, although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I remember reading about Tony Crosland and Edward Boyle, who were enormously respected by the education establishment. It was said of both of them, however, that their only function at that time was to hassle within the Cabinet and get a good Budget settlement, and that that was the end of their job.
	The culture change that has occurred since those days is quite bewildering, not surprisingly, to many people, and not entirely welcome to everyone. It is welcome to me, except for the fact that the debate about centralism and localism is a perpetual one that will continue throughout the history of debates. From time to time, central Government become too centralist, and from time to time they devolve power to other bodies—local authorities, for example—only to discover that that is inadequate and that they have to claw back some power.
	No one can doubt that education is the Government's top priority, not least because the Prime Minister has said as much so often, but it is so easy to say things. Why has he argued that it ought to be the top priority? He has done so partly because education is at the root of a strong economy. That is particularly relevant to my constituency, because we have always under-achieved according to all the measures of educational attainment. Far too few of our pupils have stayed on at school and gone to university; if we are to be a match for the fierce competitive world that is upon us—almost sweeping over us—we must attain far better levels of education and training.
	Education is important not only because of the needs of a strong economy, but for reasons of social justice. That is one of the reasons that I came into politics almost 30 years ago. I had the advantage of a good education through the grammar school system, oddly enough, but the vast majority of my contemporaries—many of whom were just as bright as me—did not have that advantage, and were condemned for many years. Some of them never recovered, because of that system. I was determined that every child should have the same rights and opportunities as I had. That is what motivates the Prime Minister and everyone on the Labour Benches. I also concede that it has motivated many Conservatives over the years—for many of whom I have had enormous respect—and many Liberal Democrats. It is quite right that we should differ over how we should achieve that end, but that is our motivation, and a huge investment in education is absolutely crucial to achieving the objective of social justice.
	I do not think that there can be any doubt about the huge investment that has been made by this Government since they took office in 1997, although some people may quibble about the statistics. I know that, for the first two years, we kept to the previous Tory Budget targets, but I was part of that decision so I have never complained about it, uncomfortable though it was during those two years. Since then, however, the investment in education has been enormous—I think that it has been unprecedented—and sustained. That is important in itself, but it is also important to understand that it has been possible only because of the economic competence of the Government.
	I have been critical of the Government from time to time, as many right hon. and hon. Members know, but the economic achievement of getting low inflation, high employment and low unemployment at the same time, together with economic growth and the huge injection into all public services, is unprecedented in the Labour party's long history. It is also unprecedented in British politics. Until 1992, the Tories were thought to be the only party of economic competence, but Tory Governments never believed in or had the political will to make huge investments in public services. I can say with great confidence that such a configuration of achievements—low inflation, high employment, low unemployment and huge investment in public services—is pretty well unprecedented in the past 50, 60, or 75 years, or perhaps even longer than that.
	We should celebrate the Labour Government's economic competence and the political will that enabled them to make this huge investment in education, without which most of the exchanges across the Chamber would be highly irrelevant. Without more money going into schools for revenue and for capital, many of the points of detail would be completely irrelevant. When I have visited schools, especially in the past 12 months, head teachers, members of boards of governors and teachers have told me—I do not have to ask them—that the money is making a difference. Everyone who believes in public services, as I do, knows that we cannot achieve change without money as a lubricant.
	We have made the investment, but we must make it work. In the days of Tony Crosland and Edward Boyle, Governments did not accept that as an objective: it was sufficient that they provided the resources, and the system had to deliver what it could within those resources. The Government have had the courage to intervene to try to make the money work effectively. In so doing, they have come up against many vested interests, and have often made themselves deeply unpopular with teachers, head teachers, teachers' associations and members of the Labour party. That has also been unprecedented. The Tories would have loved to intervene to make schools more effective, but they did not know how to do so and they did not have the political courage to tackle that problem.

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the previous Conservative Government took a different route, which was to place trust in the professionals, and not to believe that everything can be done from Whitehall?

Derek Foster: I am grateful for that intervention, because I have a long political memory of the 18 years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. Year after year, successive Tory Secretaries of State denigrated teachers and schools, and I longed for the time when we would have a Labour Government who would do what he says and trust the teachers.

Tony Cunningham: I was not going to intervene until I heard that comment from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I taught for 17 years, including during the period of Conservative government between 1984 and 1994, and there is a stark contrast between then and now. Then, we had raffles to get money to buy exercise books, but now huge resources have been provided. I have talked to many head teachers in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is excitement and a buzz about schools now? They want to do things and to change things. The situation has turned round completely.

Derek Foster: I entirely agree.During all those Tory years, it was quite painful to listen to Members all the way down from Keith Joseph, for whom I had enormous respect in other contexts. From the Opposition Back Benches, I tried to convey to him that continually denigrating schools and teachers was not the way forward. That, however, was a lesson that the Conservatives could not learn. I do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
	Tough decisions have been taken in an attempt to improve school performance. Many of us who had been involved in education knew that the head teacher was crucial—that without heads who inspired the confidence of staff, drove up standards and made everyone feel concerned about standards, schools were wasting their time. We all knew of heads who did not measure up to that; we all knew of teachers who should not be in the profession, and who were letting their colleagues down. No one before this Government, however, had the courage to deal with the problem. Carrying out that tough task and withstanding all the criticism that often came from their own side took enormous courage, and persistence and vision.
	Driving up standards is not simple—there is no magic wand. Problems must be dealt from day to day in the classroom, and the teaching force must be galvanised. I accept some of the criticism of my party: I concede that our centralisation has now gone a bit too far. We must begin to trust teachers.

Chris Grayling: That is Conservative policy.

Derek Foster: No, I have always believed that. I applaud what the Government have done in driving up standards and showing us the way, but now that all that courageous work has been done we have an opportunity to look to teachers to show us new and exciting ways of doing their job better. I hope—indeed, I believe—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her colleagues will take that unique opportunity. We needed intervention to show that those whom we represent would not accept excuses for low standards in, for instance, inner-city schools. It was important to put that across, and it was not done without causing some pain and suffering to all involved. Now, however, we have a golden opportunity to allow teachers to show us what can be done—the delivery of standards in the hands of teachers, including head teachers; politicians cannot achieve it.
	It is right for people to crawl over the minutiae of who said what to whom, when and with what motive, but it was regrettable that during yesterday's exchanges the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) seemed to be trying to get away with alleging that there had been political interference. Today, he backed off, and I am glad that he did so, because what he said yesterday did him no credit. I was going to urge the quiet man to have a quiet word with him; perhaps that has happened in the meantime.
	I think that the Conservatives have failed two important tests. First, have they the economic competence to deliver the objectives that this Government have achieved? Since 1992, no one has believed that they have. In fact, many in the Conservative party do not believe it either.
	Secondly, if the Conservatives had that economic competence, would they have the political will, or even the desire, to make the investments in education that the Labour party has made, or would they prefer some other course of political action? In my book, they fail both those tests.

Oliver Heald: I had not intended to get into the wider debate but simply wanted to concentrate on the A-levels fiasco and its effect in my constituency. However, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) was unfair to Edward Boyle and to Tony Crosland. As I recall, although it was a long time ago, Edward Boyle was the Secretary of State who introduced polytechnics, and Tony Crosland—who worked in the white heat of the technological revolution—did a great deal to improve technical education; certainly the Labour party always said so.
	Looking back, some bad things were done by the Labour party, but there were some good things. The same is true of my party. During the 18 years of Conservative rule, the national curriculum and league tables were introduced, through which we discovered what needed to be done in our inner-city schools. City technology colleges brought hope to areas where there was none before. Specialist schools, on which the Government have built, are a Conservative idea. We should not be too churlish about one another.
	Turning to the A-levels fiasco, the alarm bells were rung first at the Knights Templar school in my constituency. Articles in the media described the plight of students such as Laura Wheen, who obtained A grades in psychology A-level while receiving a U for her coursework, as did the whole class. That is extraordinary; that excellent class had received excellent AS results, and good grades were predicted for it. The teacher had read the coursework and was impressed by it, but the class received these extraordinary results.
	The same was true in history. Louis Gearing, a gifted history student, needed a particular result to get into Oxford, but he did not get it because his coursework was marked down to U. It seems odd that a bright student, who received two As in other subjects and A grades in part of his history course in the exams, should suddenly get a U for his coursework. I am pleased that Louis Gearing has been regraded. His grade has gone up and he is now able to go to Oxford, although he has put it back until next year. I am glad that that was possible as a result of the regrading exercise, but some questions remain.
	The set of Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations psychology results that was not reviewed—the grade boundaries have not been changed—seems very odd. How was it that, at the Knights Templar school, these excellent students were able to get A grades in some of the examinations in psychology, yet were all getting U, a fail, in their coursework? No one has explained that. It was not explained by Mike Tomlinson, and I would like an explanation from Ministers.How does an A-grade student suddenly become a failure when it comes to the coursework? That seems extraordinary. One might understand if it were the other way round. Someone might help a student with the coursework and the student might struggle through.

Phil Willis: That is usually the criticism that is made of coursework.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman is right. How can it happen the other way round? It does not make sense.
	Labour Members might think that it was down to the teacher, who may have read the coursework and been over-optimistic. She may not have understood and it was all a terrible accident. However, I checked with other schools in my constituency, including Fearnhill in Letchworth, another good school. The head there, Lynne Monck, wrote to me to say:
	XStudents who had received A or B grades for most psychology modules—
	this relates to the OCR again—
	Xwere awarded U grades for coursework.
	The coursework of some candidates awarded a U grade was judged to be A grade standard by the subject teacher who had attended the support meeting and followed the guidelines."
	Now, two teachers are getting it wrong—looking at course work, seeing that it is really quite good, and being surprised when it is failed. As we have heard through the media, that is being repeated around the country.
	I want to know from the Minister why OCR psychology A-level has not been subject to a review of the grading boundaries. How could this have happened? The Minister might want to consider the following point, which is also suspicious. When Fearnhill requested a re-marking of the results, they came back the same. It also asked for the scripts—the coursework papers—to be returned. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister would listen to this. Fearnhill was told that the papers could not be sent back, even though they should be available under the guidelines. The same is true of Knights Templar, which was told in August—when it originally raised the matter—that it would be sent photocopies of the scripts and coursework papers.

John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald: In a minute. Knights Templar was promised the papers, yet they never came. It filled in the forms, which stated that it could have the scripts if it wanted them. In a letter to me, Knights Templar said:
	XWe asked for a re-mark of our candidates' 2543 Research Reports (Psychology) and 2549 Psychology and Crime. We also asked for the scripts. We received letters giving the outcome of the results enquiry this morning"—
	7 October—
	Xbut without the scripts. Oddly, these letters all stated, 'Script Copy: Not Requested'. Having checked his records and finding that he had indeed ticked 'Copy of Scripts' on the form",
	the head of the sixth form who deals with these matters
	Xrang OCR to ask why the scripts had not been returned. The initial response was that scripts in certain subjects were not being returned. After persisting, he was then told that exceptions could only be made in special circumstances. Eventually, the person from OCR decided that ours was an exceptional circumstance and agreed to send the scripts."
	However, they have not arrived.
	The question remains as to how A-grade students who were awarded U grades in these psychology papers were awarded A grades for other papers in the same subject. That seems extraordinary. The grade boundaries in psychology were not reviewed, although it was said that they would be. Why not? Why is OCR so reluctant to return the psychology coursework and scripts?
	Andrew Wheen, father of Laura and a constituent of mine, says that the way to address the issue is
	Xto select a sample of candidates with anomalous grade combinations"—
	in other words, the candidates who got As and Us—
	Xand to review all their examination scripts and coursework"
	in close detail. That need not be a massive exercise; it need only be a sample.
	The Minister has a duty to get to the bottom of what went on. It is not right to leave students failing to understand why they ended up with the marks that they did.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution is in contrast to others from those on the Opposition Benches. We owe a debt of gratitude to Peter Chapman, the head teacher of Knights Templar school, for being the first to raise this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Peter Chapman, who said during the Radio 4 interview in which he first raised this issue publicly that he regarded the Secretary of State as a woman of great integrity, and as an exemplary Secretary of State? Does he also agree with Peter Chapman's comments at a parents' evening at Knights Templar school—my wife was a governor at the time—in 2001? He said that, before casting their vote at the general election, parents should remember the difference in funding under a Labour Government and a Labour Secretary of State between 1997 and 2001, and funding before 1997—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is rather long.

Oliver Heald: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I was almost tempted to ask him to give way. He and I know Peter Chapman, and he may remember that I was giving the prizes at that prize day. In my speech, I said that life was not a dress rehearsal. If a student has a question mark over an exam result and does not understand why a particular result was obtained, that can be really devastating. Laura Wheen wanted to go to one university but is having to go to another, and that is devastating. For two months Louis Gearing thought that he was not going to Oxford, which was his life's ambition. He is going to Oxford now, but he thought that he would lose the opportunity. It is important that students be given proper respect.
	I have never challenged the Secretary of State's integrity. Peter Chapman was grateful for some school buildings put up that very year, thanks to a combination of the Government and the Hertfordshire county council, which is an excellent, and Conservative-controlled, education authority.

Alistair Burt: And thanks to a good MP.

Oliver Heald: I lobbied for the building, yet the important question is not about whether any Secretary of State is pleasant or a person of integrity but about whether pupils and students have been affected. For the individuals whom I have mentioned, these are desperate stories, and we have not yet got to the bottom of what happened.
	Another case that I want to outline is not one of the OCR cases. It involves Edward Browning, another Knights Templar student who was doing Edexcel A-level music. He gave a live performance for his grade 8, which he gained with a distinction, and he gave the same performance for his A-level two weeks later. The guidance for A-level unit 4 states that a pupil who achieves grade 6 would attain a top mark in that unit.
	The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) probably also knows Simon Marlowe, the accompanist on that occasion and a professional pianist. He has told me that Edward Browning's second performance for A-level was even better than the first performance, for grade 8, for which he was awarded a distinction. However, he was awarded only 10 out of 90 for that second performance.
	It is extraordinary to note that, when Edward appealed, the mark was raised to 59 out of 90. How can it happen that an original mark of 10 out of 90 can be raised on appeal to 59 out of 90? The curious thing is that he was awarded almost 100 per cent. at his grade 8 exam.
	Ministers should not think that the problem with what is happening with A-levels is over. They need to audit what is happening much more carefully.
	Laura Wheen and her family are unhappy about the letter that the Minister for School Standards wrote to me in response to these matters. They did not object only to the fact that the letter was the classic civil service response, that it said that the Tomlinson report would take effect and that the matter was nothing to do with the Government. They are unhappy that the letter spoke about what would happen were Laura still unhappy with Xhis" grade after the revision process. That is not good enough.
	The Government often say that the problem is all to do with schools and hospitals. They did so again at the Labour party conference, but that is not the case. The problem is to do with pupils in education, and patients in health. The Government have many plans, grand schemes, projects and initiatives, but they must remember that someone like Laura Wheen is entitled to know why she was not given the grade in the OCR psychology A-level that everyone expected her to obtain.

Liz Blackman: I came into politics after spending most of my previous life in teaching. I took that road because I was so frustrated by the lack of policies and resources at the front line for the education of pupils. I looked with great interest to the Labour Government to bring in the right policies and the resources to implement them. By all accepted measures, educational achievement has been raised since 1997. I note the miserly acknowledgement of that from the Opposition education spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). We have made dramatic improvements in achievement in all key stages since 1997. I shall return to key stage 2 later.
	We also ensured that inclusion was at the forefront of early years provision and that access for adult learners was a success story. That calls for celebration. Indeed, I have joined in the celebration of those achievements in many secondary schools in my constituency. It is lamentable that the motion tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat amendment made no mention of those achievements. Of course, if they had done so they would have had to recognise the Government's success and input.
	Whenever politicians try to analyse and assess the impact of policies they should look to their own backyard—the constituencies that they represent. In Erewash, the improvements both in pupil performance and tangible resources have been extremely visible. We have a sure start programme for the early years. We have new teachers and teaching assistants and new classrooms. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, Ofsted said that the current generation of teachers was the best ever. I pay tribute to teachers in my constituency and beyond.
	The improvement in the quality of head teachers has also been much more evident in my constituency. The quality of newly appointed heads is undeniable and it filters down into the performance of their school.
	We have seen new classrooms, new roofs and refurbishment although, lamentably, with small security fences. There are two new schools on the block, one funded by the private finance initiative and the other via the public funding route. I welcome that.
	Managing improvement is always challenging, however; there is always a job to be done. It is an evolving process. Those who are managing policy constantly need to innovate or supplement to solve the challenges. Key stage 2 is an example of that. My right hon. Friend mentioned the need constantly to re-evaluate. That is not to deny, however, that in the round key stage 2 has not been a success when we compare performance between 1997 and the present.
	Since 1997, there has been a 10 per cent. improvement in English and a 14 per cent. improvement in maths. The literacy and numeracy strategies have played an enormous part in ensuring higher performances from pupils. However, that is not to say that we have not reached a plateau, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged.
	The Tories ask why we have targets if we do not meet them. I argue that it is right to have targets and, when we do not quite reach them, to acknowledge it, as long as we are travelling in the right direction. We need targets to raise expectations; to set policies; to target resources; and to analyse what is happening. After that analysis, the professional course is to further the policies by setting new targets and refocusing existing policies to ensure that the missing aspects are put in place.

Chris Grayling: Given the fact that teachers are leaving the profession at an alarming rate—one in seven each year—and that the exam system is clearly in chaos, as well as the obvious disciplinary problems in too many of our schools, will the hon. Lady say exactly what she has in mind when she uses the word Xrefocusing"?

Liz Blackman: I was about to come on to that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, teachers are moving into the profession at an extremely rapid rate and we have never had a better qualified and more professional group of teachers, as acknowledged by Ofsted. I will move on to discipline because the issue needs airing, but I should like to finish what I was saying about key stage 2.
	One of the issues with key stage 2 is related to the differential between boys and girls, which partly relates to the way boys are socialised and partly to the way males and females develop their linguistic skills. That issue has been around for a long time, but we are at least beginning to tackle it. Support packages are now going into schools and catch-up programmes are being rolled out nationally for all year 5 pupils, which is absolutely right. So further literacy support is being given. The intention is to give further support to schools that do not perform as well as others that operate in similar catchment areas, to ensure that their pupils catch up by having access to the same quality of education as their peers in similar schools.
	The Government cannot be complacent, as the Secretary of State has clearly signalled this afternoon, but progress never follows an even, upward line. There are blockages in the system. For me, the issue involves recognising those blockages and finding ways to solve them, not sweeping them under the carpet and saying that we have not got a problem.
	When I was considering speaking about key stage 2 in this debate, a press release arrived on my desk, and I shall quote it to rebalance the picture slightly:
	XNational test result for 11-year-olds have just been published by the Government and Derbyshire pupils have outperformed schools across the East Midlands and the rest of the country."
	As I represent a Derbyshire constituency, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my local LEA.
	Moving on to behaviour and exclusion, yes, there is a challenge in our schools—a challenge that a few pupils pose to teachers because of their unacceptable behaviour. I have always maintained that good teaching can eliminate poor behaviour from 90 per cent. of pupils. That quality of teaching draws pupils into a more positive attitude, works with them and moves them on to success. That is why we must continue to strive to improve the quality of teaching. I acknowledge that the quality of teaching is rising, as does the chief inspector of schools, but there is no doubt that children on the fringe of bad behaviour will not stray if they are given the right sort of high quality teaching.
	That said, some children in our schools will demonstrate challenging and disturbed behaviour for whatever reason, and no matter how many strategies are tried, schools simply cannot move those children towards behaving acceptably. That damages everyone—the pupils themselves, the pupil cohort, the teachers and the reputation of the schools. That issue has to be addressed, but the question is how to do so.
	There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about the issue of the structure for permanent exclusion. In the first instance, it is the head's responsibility, and, in the second instance, it is the responsibility of the independent appeals panel. I agree with Chris Patten's justification for setting up the appeals panel in 1986, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—parents must have an independent place to go to challenge a decision. That is an issue of natural justice, as he mentioned, and is related to the Human Rights Acts. There is also a place for the Secretary of State to comment on a decision that I, too, believe was profoundly wrong, as the guidance was not followed by the independent appeals panel. The structure and mechanisms of the system, however, have served us quite well since being set up in 1986. As has been flagged up, the guidance needs to be tougher and stronger and needs to make it extremely clear that the issue relates to the impact of such pupils on the school community. I therefore welcome the fact that one of the members of the independent appeals panel will be someone who has had direct experience in the classroom, which is essential.
	I wanted to move on to the issue of the Conservative party's stance on this matter, but I must confess that I completely lost track of what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was proposing this afternoon when he was making policy on the hoof. I had understood that the Conservatives' official policy was that there should be legal home-school contracts, which I think is a barmy idea—it is extremely bureaucratic, and there would be many legal challenges and resource implications for the school. It would be a plate of spaghetti—a complete nightmare. It is therefore far better to toughen up the present system, which has served us quite well, than to follow that route, which would be a knee-jerk reaction.
	Before I finish on the issue of exclusions, we should also recognise the importance of dealing with and acknowledging the rights of children who are permanently excluded. I recall from my teaching days that there was nothing for them—it was very difficult to get them into other schools if they were very challenging, and they entered what I call the twilight zone. They never touched base with any educator whatever. They got into trouble and began to get involved in petty crime. There was nothing for them—not even a safety net. I praise the Government's commitment to and delivery of full-time education for those children, for all sorts of reasons, but mostly because their behaviour is not irreversible at that stage in their lives if we do not walk away from them, which the previous Government did and this Government have not done. I note the comment by the Office for Standards in Education that the education standards of permanently excluded pupils have sharply improved, which is absolutely right.
	Truancy is part of the problem, and good teaching minimises it, but there are other reasons for truancy, not least parents condoning it. A multi-agency approach is important in that regard. It is important that parents are supported and that there are police on the streets who are part of the solution in terms of identifying truants. That is where community beat teams, which have been doing sterling work in my community, fit in. Ultimately, however, it is important to recognise that parents, too, have a responsibility. When they are not discharging their responsibility and not accepting the support for that responsibility, they should be challenged, and we should make greater use of parenting orders and fines.

Rob Marris: Would my hon. Friend agree that, by way of analogy—this is an Opposition day debate, and I can see only five Conservative Members in the Chamber—the Conservatives are playing truant and their quiet man is not taking responsibility in leading them either?

Liz Blackman: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point. The Chamber has indeed become rather sparsely populated.
	I want to move on to other issues. I want to flag up another particularly good policy, which, again, relates to discipline, truancy and school performance—the idea of federations of schools and of taking good leaders who have a track record of turning schools around and making their talents available to others. We should take that forward swiftly. On the day that policy was announced, a head from Sheffield, I think, was wheeled out by Radio 4 to comment on it. He had turned around the culture in several schools that were now performing well. We need to encourage more good leaders to come into schools as heads, but at the same time, we need to use the people with the track record and the expertise who are already there.
	I have concentrated on discipline, achievement and behaviour, but those are bread-and-butter issues. I am really disappointed that the Conservatives have virtually nothing positive to say about how they would move the agenda forward and raise achievement. I am equally disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have come forward with very little. We have the commitment and the track record in terms of pupil performance, but what really heartens me is that, when we have got it wrong, we have the honesty to say that we have got it wrong. It is not easy to move forward. When there are problems, we tackle them, and we say that there are problems. We consult and we try again to move the agenda forward. That is important. We are an open Government in that respect. By listening, and by recognising the issues, we have achieved a great deal in the last five years.

Chris Grayling: I shall try to keep my remarks relatively brief, as I know that other Members want to speak.
	The House will not be surprised to learn that my biggest concern in relation to this debate is the situation surrounding the school in my constituency; however, I also want to make several points about the predicament that many of the other head teachers in my area and around the country face in trying to maintain the improvements that have taken place under governments of both parties in the past 15 years.
	It is important to remember that recent international surveys of educational performance in different countries—the most recent of which was carried out by the OECD a couple of years ago—highlighted the high quality of the education that our 15-year-olds receive. Those 15-year-olds have been educated under Conservative and Labour Governments. The reality is that, over that 15-year period, good work has been done across the political spectrum to raise standards, given that in the preceding era, teaching strategies in this country were broadly speaking not as good as they should have been.
	The tragic thing today is that we risk losing many of the improvements that have taken place over that 15-year period. Ultimately, we risk losing them because the teaching profession is becoming demoralised and teachers are leaving their jobs. Good heads and good teachers are leaving, for a variety of reasons. At the heart of those reasons—this is backed up by specific research concerning those leaving the profession—is the issue of discipline. Sadly, although the vast majority of our young people are a credit to us—they work hard, achieve excellent exam results and go on to do an excellent job in our society—a minority continues to cause trouble in our schools. That minority continues to disrupt otherwise hard-working classes and to set an example to its peers that we would not wish to be set. We should have a system that backs up heads and teachers when they take difficult decisions about that troublesome minority. As we have seen in my constituency in the past few weeks, the tragedy is that such a system does not exist.
	I feel very much for the predicament that the governors and teachers of Glyn school have faced. This is not the first time that they have had to face such a problem. Eighteen months ago, they decided to exclude a boy who was caught with drugs in the school. That decision was overturned by an appeal panel and it caused great distress in the school, not because of the principle of the individual case but because of the signal that it sent to every other pupil that they could get away with it. There is no ultimate sanction if pupils who are excluded can go to an appeal panel and be placed back in the same classroom with the same teachers who tried to discipline them in the first place. What message does that send to anyone tempted to cause trouble in future?
	One can imagine the great distress caused to the head of the school, his governing body and the teaching staff when the same thing happened again 18 months later. The circumstances may have been different but, as outlined specifically in a letter from the Secretary of State, they were such that the decision to exclude should have had a rock-solid foundation. There should have been no doubt at all. There had been a clear indication from the Government that, this time, in taking a decision to exclude, the school and its governing body was right. One can imagine their distress when the decision was overturned and they were instructed to take the boys back into the school.
	We have seen the rest of the story unfold in the media in the past few days. It is very much my hope that the media attention will die down and that the school, the LEA and the parents of the boys can sort the matter out. The school will then be able to return to normal. The boys will be able to continue their education, which they must have, in a different place, perhaps separated from each other, but in an environment in which they can be sorted out and placed on to the straight and narrow and achieve their potential without a further signal being sent to pupils in that and other schools that they can get away with such behaviour.
	Fundamentally, however, we will still be left with a system that is flawed. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that only 3 per cent. of exclusions were overturned by appeals panels, but one third of appeals involve pupils being returned to schools from which they have been excluded. In one third of exclusion cases, a message is sent to the rest of the boys and girls in those schools that they can get away with bad behaviour. That is wrong. It is right and proper that every case is considered carefully, and I do not believe that any head teacher or governing body takes lightly the decision to exclude. I must correct the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who said that the decision is taken first by the head and then by the appeal panel. It is not. We have governing bodies that represent local authorities, teaching and non-teaching staff and other people in the community; who better to be the ultimate arbiter of whether a head teacher's decision is correct?

Caroline Flint: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the media taking a lower profile in this case, but it is one case, and most appeal panels do not overturn the decision taken by a school. Did the hon. Gentleman have anything to do with leaking the story to the press in the first place?

Chris Grayling: I did not leak anything to the press. I have been totally open in raising my concerns locally and nationally. I wrote to the Secretary of State at the very start to say that there was a concern that needed to be sorted out. The hon. Lady does my constituents discredit if she does not recognise the angst in my constituency and in the whole area about what has happened and if she does not realise the extent of the debate that has taken place locally. It does not take anyone to leak a story like that to the media: it gathered momentum from the beginning, because of the genuine frustration that exists.
	We must have a system that reflects the needs of schools, head teachers and governing bodies to maintain discipline. The Government must come up with a viable alternative, and I urge them to so because the need exists today.

Kevan Jones: Having been the chair of governors of a secondary school for 12 years, I sympathise with the school governors in this case. This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition called for the abolition of the appeal panels, but the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should come up with a new system. When will we hear the hon. Gentleman's or the Conservative party's solution to the problem?

Chris Grayling: There is no difference. I fundamentally believe, as does the Conservative party, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—he set this out at our party conference—that the ultimate decision must rest with the governing body. The governing body and the community that it represents must be the final arbiter.
	Let us consider the consequences of getting things wrong. [Interruption.] It is all well and good Labour Members trying to score points across the Floor of the House. They do not seem to understand the importance of this issue. [Interruption.] The Minister for School Standards may chuckle, but does he not realise the strength of feeling in the teaching profession? Does he not talk to those head teachers who strongly believe that the current system is letting them down? Does he not read the surveys of teachers leaving the profession? As I said, in the last year for which we have figures available, 15.8 per cent. of teachers resigned from the profession. Some 85.2 per cent. referred to getting out of teaching and some 45 per cent. referred to pupil behaviour as a key reason for their decision to leave. Has the Minister really not understood the importance of this issue? Can he not get to grips with it and give head teachers a framework within which they can work that is fair and just and protects the interests of their schools?

Rob Marris: Labour Members are a little confused about the system that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described earlier, in which LEAs would have a role in the appeals system. That is in contradistinction to the system that we have now. Will the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) therefore explain how that would have worked in the case of the two pupils at Glyn technology school?

Chris Grayling: I did not come here to engage in a prolonged discussion about Conservative policy. I want action from the Ministers who have the job today and whose responsibility it is to sort out problems such as those experienced in my constituency. They have not done and are not doing enough. I hope that they will soon do enough to ensure that such a case cannot recur.
	This case is only one problem. We have also had the A-level fiasco, and Epsom college in my constituency was one of the schools caught up in that. The Government also appear actively to encourage higher education institutions to accept pupils with lower attainments than those achieved by pupils in other schools. I highlight the case of a young lady from Epsom college who achieved very good A-level results but who was turned down for a place at a university that had offered places to pupils with significantly lower attainments. That cannot be right. We will not help to achieve excellence in society if we force down the achievements of those at the top of the pile so as to promote those who need help but who should not be pushed to the top for no good reason.
	If the problems are not solved and if the Government cannot deliver a fairer framework and provide better practical support to heads and teachers, they will leave the profession. The plateau that we have mentioned today will be there tomorrow, the day after, the year after and the year after that. It is all well and good Labour Members citing all the so-called achievements of the past five years, but if they talk to teachers and head teachers, they will find that there is a crisis of credibility in the current system. If the Government do not address that crisis and provide the real solutions that keep the best and most experienced teachers in the profession, the improvements that have taken place in recent years under all Governments will not be able to continue.

John Mann: In the summer I spent a weekend at a game park in a faraway land. When a person visits a game park, he hopes to see the kill and have a sense of blood. As a new MP I have been waiting for the lions to devour the carcase of the downed Front Bencher. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed. The other part of the equation in a game park is the heat of the midday sun when mad dogs and Englishmen go out. That is when the jackal appears. It runs around but does not make a kill. Instead, it scavenges for berries and insects. There are a lot of jackals here today, desperately looking around for the odd—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting though the hon. Gentleman's contribution may be, he should address his remarks to the motion.

John Mann: In that case I shall talk about the coalfields.
	For the past 80 years in my constituency, the education world—

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman took us on a tour of Africa and now we are off to the coalfields. Surely the subject of the debate is education.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is correct. I have already reminded the hon. Gentleman to address his remarks to that topic.

John Mann: On coalfields and education, for the past 80 years, mining villages—now mainly former mining villages—in my constituency have not been well served by successive Governments when it comes to education. For decade on decade, the grammar school debate has had little relevance to them, other than in relation to secondary moderns, which the overwhelming majority of children from pit villages attended. During that period the children in schools in my constituency were described as pit fodder because on the Friday on which they were leaving school at the age of 15—eventually it became 16—the National Coal Board turned up and told them which pit they were working in on the Monday. Whether they liked it or not, they went into the pit.
	The legacy of that is twofold. In our surgeries we see the level of illiteracy among the older population. Scores of retired miners who come to see me with compensation claims for industrial injuries caused by working down the pit cannot read or write. They bring the wife, the son or the daughter with them because, although they will not admit it, they cannot fill in the forms to get the compensation themselves. That is the norm rather than the exception.
	However, the problem of lack of aspiration is even more terrifying. I spent most of September holding a public inquiry into heroin use in coalfield communities. Until the pits shut, those communities had a cohesion and a discipline that held them together. To put it crudely, problems of discipline were sorted out beneath the ground. The pits are not open now but the communities still exist and, since the decimation of the pits in the 1980s and early 1990s, they have struggled to cope. The level of heroin addiction among younger people from those villages in my constituency leaves me incredulous. Some of them started using drugs in the early 1990s at the age of nine, 10 or 11. Five of them died this year. The one permanent institution is the school. I am not prepared to tolerate for those children —from this or any other Government—anything less than I expect for my children.
	My children go to and have gone to local state schools. That is my experience of education today. I can see improvements year on year, as can the majority of hon. Members, especially Labour Members. In addition to the results and the figures, we can witness the improvement. We can feel it and understand the difference today. I go to schools all the time. I take classes in secondary schools and talk to primary schools constantly, as I am sure do most of my colleagues. We find that teachers, head teachers and governors no longer have the problem of resources.
	Let me give an example. Since Labour came to power, there have been 10 exclusions from Bircotes school in one of the big pit villages. The head teacher excluded pupils because he wanted to turn that failing school into one in which the community could take pride. He told me that the biggest difference was the #300,000 that was spent on the flat roof. The advantage of that was more fundamental than the saving in recurrent maintenance costs, which was substantial and detracted from other uses for the money; it also meant that his time as a head teacher could be used differently. Should his time be spent patching up 30-year-old flat roofs that should never have been built like that in the first place, or should it be spent on building standards in schools? That is the big difference.
	Let me also give the example of New Manton primary school, which used to be called Manton primary school, and tell the House something about exclusions. The Government have made a bigger difference to primary schools than to anything else. The late Matthew Wilson—he died earlier this year when he was 19 years old—was in the headlines when he was five or six because the teachers went on strike when the governors would not exclude him. That school excluded someone three weeks ago.
	The school is called New Manton because #1 million has been spent on it in the past six months. It has been rebuilt. That is the sort of change that we need if we are to raise aspirations among those children. For 80 years they have been told their place in society. They have been told where to go, and it did not matter whether it was a secondary modern or a comprehensive. They have been told where they would be for the rest of their lives. That does not create aspiration. When the jobs and the job security go, a time bomb ticks away that encourages a lifestyle of truancy, absenteeism and experimentation with drugs, especially heroin. I assure Ministers that when I publish our report on Monday, I will deliver a copy to the Department for Education and Skills. It makes four recommendations on the national curriculum and on how we create aspiration in schools in such communities.
	The debate should be about how we further that process and extend to other schools the gains made at Knights Templar school, which my eldest daughter attended until the election. We need to translate the successes at brilliant schools to schools that are slowly beginning to be successful so that that success is replicated in every corner of the country. I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on a considered and relevant speech, but to people living in my constituency—and to those who went before them—it is a disgrace to hear the nonsense and rubbish that we have heard from the jackals at play. 6.19 pm

David Rendel: It is a little odd that on this Conservative Opposition day so few Conservative Members have been here.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is the only Liberal here.

David Rendel: Indeed I am, but this is not a Liberal Democrat Opposition day. It is perhaps significant that the Leader of the Opposition today made a remark that some Conservative Members may be embarrassed about.
	Earlier, a Conservative Member criticised comprehensives. I should like to start on a note of personal gratitude to the state school system. The last of my three children has just left school. All my children were educated entirely in the state system, and they got a great deal out of it. I know that many of their colleagues and friends also had a very good education in the state system. As people tell me is unmistakeable from my accent, and as you can probably tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not a product of the state system. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) never ceases to remind me of that fact whenever I speak in the House. Nevertheless, I feel, for a number of reasons, that my children have had a much better education than most children who go through the independent system now. They have emerged with a lot more knowledge of the world and a better understanding of how normal people live. They have certainly had excellent teaching throughout their school careers.
	I realise that that is not true of the state system in every part of the country. It happens that in my part of the world, west Berkshire, we have an excellent state system. I would have been happy to send my children to any of the schools in west Berkshire, and I am delighted that our system is so good.

Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Rendel: I apologise to hon. Members but I have been asked to keep my speech short, so I have said that I will take no interventions. I am not trying to be rude; I know that a number of other Members want to speak, so I must do without interventions today.
	There are undoubtedly problems in the state system, some of which have been highlighted today. I turn first to the A-levels fiasco. I certainly do not agree with the phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today when he said that this year's A-levels are not worth the paper that they were written on. I regard that as an appalling slur on the students who have taken A-levels and, in many cases, gained grades that are fully justified and of which they can be proud. They will feel that those grades have been maligned by the right hon. Gentleman's remark. It is interesting that when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was challenged to confirm that he agreed with his leader, he failed to do so. Indeed, he refused to do so and seemed rather embarrassed by the remark. Perhaps he wishes that the quiet man of politics had been a bit quieter or shut up altogether.
	The remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) were very interesting, and I am pleased to see that he is still here. His remarks were to the point, and he asked a series of questions to which I hope the Minister will properly respond. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is not the only one who has come across cases of the sort that he mentioned. Obviously, because I have children who have friends in different schools around the country, I have heard of various cases in which young people have had A-level papers marked with very different grades, in spite of the fact they have the same level of intelligence and received the same teaching.
	That is inexplicable, particularly when, as happened in at least one case that I know of but not in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the papers were returned and the teachers confirmed that it was extraordinary that one paper should have been marked with a U when the others received a much higher grade. There seemed to be no difference in the standard of the papers. Either the paper had been completely mis-marked or there had been a misunderstanding about what was required. I suspect that the Government will tell us that the teachers and pupils in such cases simply did not understand what was required in particular A2 papers this year. If so, surely the Government should be criticised for utterly failing to pilot the A2 stage and make sure that it was understood in good time.
	The whole fiasco has had a further effect on the universities. We know that not many papers were re-graded and not many students will have to move university, finding that they had the right to go to their first choice after having decided that they must go to their second choice. However, there is a large number of young people who were left wondering which university they would be able to attend. When it became clear that a number of papers would be re-graded, they were left hanging, trying to decide whether they should take up their place at their second choice of university or wait in case they could go to their first choice.
	As we know, a number decided at the last minute not to go up to university at all this year but to put off their course and take a gap year. I hope that the Minister will tell the House whether he is researching how many unfilled university places there are as a result of students having decided at the last minute not to take them up. Sadly, many will not have got the re-grading that they needed, but even so they may have decided to give up for this year and left places unfilled. I understand that the Government have guaranteed that they will pay the extra costs caused by those students who decide to move university, but will they pay the universities for the cost of any unfilled places resulting from the fiasco that they caused? How many such places will there be? Will that cause a bulge next year when those pupils will want to find a place?
	I want to make a further quick criticism of the Government that concerns the intolerable delay in making decisions about the new system of student finance, and I am delighted to see the relevant Minister, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, in her place. That delay is making life very difficult for those who are trying to decide when and where to go to university next year, and I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give an absolute guarantee that the new system will be in place not just before the new university year starts but before students have to make those decisions. Knowledge of what the financial package will be is a critical part of that decision.
	There is much excellence in our schools, colleges and universities at present. There are some excellent teachers, head teachers, governors and LEAs, but sadly they are too often let down by too much testing and too little teaching. When the testing proves flawed, as has happened this year, we get the worst of both worlds. For that at least the Government ought to be held responsible, and they ought to take responsibility tonight.

Caroline Flint: My constituency is much like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann): a collection of satellite communities, including mining villages and rural areas, in this case around Doncaster. He was right to say that young men would come out of school at 15 and be sent down the pit. Young women had nowhere else to go, and like men they suffered from the lack of aspiration. There were generations about whom Governments could say, XThey don't need an education. They can work in steel, in mining, on the roads or in other manual jobs." They rejected those people, and that is why today significant numbers of older people cannot read or write.
	What we know today is that children's expectations are not those of their grandparents, and that those jobs have enormously declined. Even to do manual work for local authorities, such as that done by carpenters, electricians, plumbers and plasterers, one needs to know how to read and write so that one can organise the work. It is no longer enough to have the manual skills to do the job; one needs to be able to use a computer.
	Future generations—and the kids going through school at the moment—face a major and difficult challenge. In mining areas, like many others that depended on heavy industries and manual labour, we are having to challenge some of the ideas of grandparents and parents and, to be honest, of some of those who work in education and support it in our local authorities. I say that as a Labour Member of Parliament from a Labour area.
	I remember only a few years ago being in one of the primary schools in my constituency where this Government had provided funds to create a computer learning centre. A new classroom was developed, software and hardware was installed and the kids were there; it was a great day. The head teacher whispered in my ear, XOf course, these kids won't need this." I am pleased that everything that this Government have done has challenged inequality and the idea that a child born in poverty will never have the chance to take GCSEs and A-levels and go to university. That idea was accepted for too long. During 18 years in government, the Conservative party did nothing to tackle such discrimination and inequality.
	Several attacks have been made today on this Government's policies, but the Opposition Front-Bench teams have not suggested how they would turn round the situation or where they would find the money to improve things. We know from the Conservative party conference that the Tories would like to introduce legal home-school contracts. This Government introduced such agreements. Incidentally, before they did so, my children's primary school already had them. Good head teachers saw contracts as a carrot not a stick with which to develop a dialogue with parents on their children entering school. Not only did I and the head teacher sign a home-school contract, my child did as well. That was part of creating a dialogue early on, which is right. The Conservatives opposed home-school agreements when this Government suggested them and accused the Government of being too bureaucratic. Now they want to turn what is a very good way to start communication with parents and families into a legal minefield.
	The Conservatives are also interested in vouchers. We all remember the nursery vouchers. They did nothing to improve early-years education or standards in the sector, yet the Conservatives now want to introduce such a system for schools too. They want to give a parent a voucher who would then on their tod find a school for their child. It would be a little like XSupermarket Sweep". The system is flawed, as shown by the introduction of nursery vouchers. Not even Margaret Thatcher or Keith Joseph suggested introducing vouchers for schools, but the new Thatcherites of today want to do so.
	Such a system does not in any way recognise the different needs and challenges of each community. It has nothing to do with education for the many. It would promote education for the few who feel able to articulate their children's needs and find a school suitable. It has nothing to do with people wanting to go to a school in their community that meets the standards that they require for their children. It has nothing to do with dealing with truancy or disaffection.
	As many of my hon. Friends have said this afternoon, some of the problems in our communities require that schools are integral to the communities and projects on the ground. As someone who sits on the board of a sure start scheme, I know that such schemes are a good example of trying to work with families and schools before children attend school. In order to help schools, my sure start board has funded staff to conduct home-school liaison before children start nursery school.
	Such partnership is about creating a community and recognising that most kids spend most of their time outside school. It is about what affects them on their walk to school or in the home. It is about addressing their aspirations and poverty in the community around them. That is why Connexions, sure start and multi-agency work is so important. That is why I am pleased that the most recent education legislation considers giving schools more of a role in developing more on-site wrap-around services—child care, adult learning clubs or whatever—and allowing them the freedom to develop the services with the community that are so desperately needed.
	A-levels have been the subject of much of the debate. I do not want to repeat what others have said, but I would like to say this: there was never a golden era when A-levels were not criticised. When I took my O-levels and A-levels, the criticism was that students had just one shot. If they did not perform on that day at that time in that examination, that was it. It did not matter if someone had terrible hay fever that affected their performance or what issues they had brought from home. I remember fellow students feeling that they had done so much work over two years yet none of it had been recorded or appreciated.
	There was a debate over why girls were not doing as well as boys, and the old argument that boys could cram things in on the day. There were accusations about cramming and students not getting a learning experience. That is partly why we moved to a system that offered some continual assessment as well as some measure of performance under examination conditions. That is right. That does not mean that there are not issues over striking the right balance, but let us not try to return to what I do not think were the good old days. Is it a bad thing to record as a result of continual assessment young people's progress over the two-year course—GCSEs or A-levels—and their consistent attainment? If the system means that more people get their GCSEs and A-levels, what is wrong with that? Such a system is a truer record of a young person's performance.
	We have a real challenge ahead of us. The comprehensive system must be looked at. We must consider how specialist schools should work. I have been a very strong advocate in this House of 14-plus education and the vocational element to it. We must ensure that that works. We must have an education system that tackles the things that do not work but at the same time recognises that, unless we put resources in, we will not be able to change anything.

Alistair Burt: What outsiders find puzzling about politics is how a debate that embraces a wide number of subjects and in which all Members are interested becomes so polarised. Those on one side make it clear that, as far as they are concerned, the starting date for everything wonderful about the education system happens to be 1997, and that nothing of any value occurred before then. Everybody in the real world understands that the process of government is continuous. All Governments do good things and less good things. The Labour Government have done some good things and less good things, and the same is true of previous Conservative Governments.
	Obviously, an Opposition day debate puts into sharp focus the things that might be wrong. That is the purpose of opposition, but the point of the debate is not to denigrate everything in the education system but to focus criticism properly where it might be made. Some Labour Members have tended to take a blinkered view that there is only one starting date and that only one party cares about a particular topic. That runs counter to the intelligence of the population, who know that that is not true and that it is not the way to go about things.
	As for criticising aspects of new Conservative policy, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and her colleagues might remember that some of the things that we had in our policy ideas box a few years ago are now the policy of the Labour party and the Labour Government. I enjoyed Prime Minister's Question Time today, at which the Prime Minister teased my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about completing the Thatcher revolution, when many members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party believe that he knows more about completing the Thatcher revolution than anyone on the Opposition Benches.
	I shall concentrate my remarks on the concern about examinations expressed in the Opposition motion. Three aspects cause me particular concern. I am puzzled about why the fuss about improvement—the higher quality of students and their grades—arose in the first place. I am concerned about the Government's role in understanding that the structure of the new examination would lead to problems. Finally, I am worried about the reasons why there should be any perception of Government interference in the process.
	First, I am puzzled about why, when it emerged that A-level grades would be better than in the past, there was such an extraordinary panic among the Government and the examination boards. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made clear, the whole structure of the examination was designed so that hard-working pupils would achieve better grades. First, they were taking a public examination at the end of the first year of the sixth form, which had not previously taken place; secondly, the way in which the examination was structured and the modules introduced ensured that those who worked hard could count on reaching a basic standard, and that a significant improvement in grades was highly likely.
	I should have thought that a Government who always castigate Opposition parties if they raise a scintilla of doubt about grade inflation would have spent the summer preparing the British public for a significant improvement in A-level grades and explaining precisely how that improvement, which I find entirely understandable, had come about. At what stage did someone suddenly think that it was a problem? I cannot understand that. The examination was set up and people worked harder, so grades should have been better—but at some stage somebody panicked. Why? We have never had a clear explanation.
	The second source of my puzzlement and concern is how the Government could have known nothing about the way in which the very nature and structure of the examination would lead to higher grades and cause some of the problems on which Mike Tomlinson reported. How did they not know that that was going on? That is the most significant challenge facing the Government tonight.
	The House debates many issues that affect people's lives only tangentially, but occasionally we do things that affect people on a personal level for the rest of their lives. In his eloquent and excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) described the personal difficulties affecting some of his constituents that will mark them for life. When a great principle goes wrong, the bottom line is that people are damaged. The Government cannot and should not walk away from their responsibility for that, and they will not do so. We have had only the first major report and this is only the first Commons debate, but there will be more, because the Government are responsible for real damage on this occasion.
	First, how did the original intention behind the AS-level system—to broaden the post-16 curriculum and to have five subjects going down to three—get lost, so that it became four subjects going down to three? There is not much broadening in that. Was the upheaval really necessary if we were to have only four, not five, subjects initially? How did that come about? Who took that decision?
	Secondly, the recommendation was that the relative weighting of AS and A2 should be 40:60, to acknowledge the fact that the first year examination must necessarily be easier because students had had only one year of study. Who took the decision to make the weighting 50:50? Name the Minister who took that decision and explain the reasoning that led to their failure to understand that that would cause the very inflation about which the Government are now concerned. Was it a wise decision, who took it, and why was the original 40:60 recommendation turned down?
	Thirdly, there is the issue of where the grade boundaries should be set and the grades defined. As Mike Tomlinson reports, the system contains no definition of what constitutes an A-grade, a C-grade or an E-grade. How did that come about? Who failed to spot the omission? Which Minister was responsible? The QCA is not an independent organisation: it is accountable, not to Parliament, but to the Department for Education and Skills. How is it that throughout the years of development, the problem was not spotted?
	Is it true that at a relatively early stage, in 1998 or 1999, meetings took place between Government advisers and representatives of the QCA—meetings at which senior officials from the DFES were present—during which the deficiencies in structure were brought out? If it is true, why were the problems not communicated to Ministers? Did they not know? Why did they not take responsibility?
	Can Ministers explain how a school that knows what it is doing—of which there are thousands throughout the country— can produce a pupil who works hard and gets an A-grade on an examination, but receives a U-grade on a piece of coursework? How is that possible? We have had no explanation so far. We have raised all those issues, but received no answers—certainly not from the Secretary of State, who hardly mentioned the examinations issue.
	The third source of puzzlement is the perception of what the Government wanted and the suspicion of interference. Could it be that in education, as in every other sphere of public service, nothing in this country moves unless the Government know all about it; and when things go their way, they claim credit, but when something goes wrong, their hands are snatched away as though they had had a collective electric shock, and it is all somebody else's fault? I can provide examples of that. We have not gone into the individual learning accounts scandal today, although the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned it and we could have explored it. A system was set up to help people to get back into the world of education, but they were let down because of chronic Government failure, for which Ministers have never taken responsibility.
	When the Government manipulate access to university as they have been doing, is it any wonder that people suspect they might be guilty of manipulating the examination system as well? I agree with Mike Tomlinson that there is no evidence of direct ministerial interference, but everyone in the Chamber and outside can understand how such a perception might arise, given the fact of an interfering, manipulative, centralising, authoritarian, bullying Government. That is what the Government are, and that is why, when something goes wrong, people outside suspect that the Government had a hand in it.
	If we are to move on, we have to recognise that the Government are at fault and Ministers have to acknowledge that. They have to explain how they knew nothing until we reached the current stage. They have to answer the questions that thousands of school pupils and their teachers are asking about how the individual who should be responsible can pass on that responsibility to others.
	If we want to find a way out of the uncertainty and translate the good things that happen in some schools to schools throughout the country—as we all do, without exception and regardless of party—the one thing that is needed is certainty in the system. The Government are guilty of having failed the public: they have introduced uncertainty into the examination system, which has been thoroughly damaging to the chances of hundreds of thousands of this country's students. What is needed to restore that certainty are an independent inquiry into the examination system—including GCSEs as well as A-levels—and an independent QCA. If we can achieve those things, we might rescue something from the mess.
	Finally, I want the Government to answer this question: if the boards' perception was that somebody somewhere wanted grades to be lowered, how did that perception come about? How was it communicated to them, or did they just make it up? How did Bill Stubbs come to perceive that the marks that pupils had worked hard to achieve and which the examinations had been constructed to create were wrong and had to be lowered? Was it the fairies, or did somebody somewhere give the boards a real sense that that had to be done? Bearing in mind the Government's track record, most of us know the answer.

Chris Pond: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for whom I have had respect for many years. My respect has been greatly enhanced in the past few minutes. The hon. Gentleman told us that the Opposition care about education. This is an Opposition day debate, but most Opposition Members have been playing truant: for most of the time, hardly one sixth of a primary school class has been sitting on the Opposition Benches—and this is their own debate.
	The debate has, of course, nothing to do with education: it is all about trying to exploit the discomfort of A-level students. That strategy was revealed and undermined this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition told all A-level students that, despite their hard work, their A-levels were not worth the paper on which they were written. That is shameful. I hope that in the last few minutes of the debate an Opposition Front Bencher will apologise to A-level students in my constituency and elsewhere for what the right hon. Gentleman said, and will say that he did not mean it and that he withdraws his statement. I do not expect that we will hear that apology.
	The opening remarks of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), were presented to us without him being able to tell us of the changed achievements of 11-year-olds between when the Government took office and now. I shall put the changes on the record. The percentage of pupils achieving the expected level 4 in English at the age of 11 rose from 63 per cent. in 1997 to 75 per cent. last year. It rose from 62 per cent. to 71 per cent. in maths and from 69 per cent. to 87 per cent. in science. I am proud of what pupils, teachers, governors and parents have achieved. I am proud also of the Government's part in that.
	There is still much more to do, but when I became a Member about five years ago primary schools in my constituency were operating with broken windows, leaking roofs, very few books and no IT equipment—rotten conditions in which children were supposed to learn and in which teachers were supposed to teach. I am proud that we have been able to do something about that.

Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Pond: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me. We are very short of time, so I cannot take interventions.
	An important part of the improvement that we have achieved is reform, but we have also been able to put more resources into education. As has been said, the resources that have been made available have lubricated the necessary changes. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the announcement this week that Gravesham will be included as one of 13 excellence clusters, which will mean extra resources and extra investment for schools in some of the most deprived parts of my constituency.
	Kent county council recently announced that it has been able to make use of the extra education resources to open nine new nurseries, which is eight more than we had before. That should be a cause for celebration, so I was a little surprised to find primary head teachers in my constituency slightly down in the mouth when I met them a few days ago. They had recently had a presentation from Kent county council, which is Conservative controlled, although I am sure that that has nothing to do with what I am about to say. The presentation informed them that, despite the 6 per cent. increase in education spending to 2005–06, there will be a loss to schools in Kent of 8 per cent.—#40 million over the medium term. That is equivalent of the closure of every school in my constituency, and an inability to meet basic standards.
	I have the presentation that was made by an officer of Kent county council. I shall circulate it to every head teacher in my constituency. I hope that the Department will ensure that it goes to every head teacher in Kent. The letter that I and other Members received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 8 July underlines the fact that the Government have given a guarantee that no authority schools
	Xwill lose out in real terms as a result of introducing the new system."
	That refers to the new local government finance system. The letter continues:
	XThis protection of the funding assessment will be in addition to the protection offered by the proposed continued operation of grant floors and ceilings."
	It is disappointing that, despite this being an Opposition day debate on education, we have not heard any positive proposals from the Opposition. They have attempted only to criticise what the Government have achieved, often in difficult circumstances, over five years. They have made no attempt to congratulate students on what they achieved through hard work. To tell young people that their qualifications are not worth the paper on which they are written is shameful. I hope that Opposition Members will take their last opportunity in the debate to pay tribute to those young people and perhaps to give some credit for what has been achieved in education.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to contribute to the debate, which has been interesting, not least because of Labour Members' desire to steer well away from any justification of the Government's activities and of the conduct of the Department, which is the subject of the debate and on which I shall focus. Happily, there will be other opportunities to discuss how Conservative policy will be able to contribute to an increase in standards in schools.
	As for the conduct of the Department, I shall refer briefly to three issues, each of which has the same characteristics—namely, that Ministers are responsible for their decisions. They should have known that problems were occurring: indeed, they were warned that problems would occur. Over the summer—this is the second day after the conclusion of the summer recess—the chickens came home to roost, yet Ministers will not take responsibility for what occurred.
	During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) I had the opportunity to refer to the difficulties associated with the Criminal Records Bureau. Ministers knew that there had been problems virtually since the beginning of the programme in February. They had been warned. In July, Home Office Ministers said that teachers would have access to list 1999 and that there would not be a problem. They said that if timetables were met, there would not be a backlog by the end of the summer, but they failed. It was their responsibility, having introduced the system. I declare an interest because I was a member of the Committee that considered the Protection of Children Bill. Ministers knew that they had to get right an important issue. They delayed the introduction of the system so as to get it right, but they failed to do so.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends have been saying clearly for more than three years that schools should make decisions on the merits of a pupil's exclusion, and that the final decision should rest with the school. Action should then be taken outside the school through the improvement of pupil referral units, or progress centres. That would ensure that discipline and decisions made in schools were defended. It would restore an ethos within schools and remove one of the reasons why teachers find it increasingly difficult to teach and to maintain discipline.
	Some of my constituents work at the OCR. The Secretary of State has sought to rely on the Tomlinson report but to take account only of its second half. She says that there is no documentary evidence of Ministers having any responsibility for creating a perception that grade boundaries should be redefined to secure a particular statistical outcome for the 2001 results. The front end of the report, however, is all about the policy decisions that have been taken. I shall not rehearse those decisions in detail as they were mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). Ministers decided that although the content of the AS course made up 40 per cent. of the demands placed upon students, 50 per cent. of the marks would be available for it. Ministers decided that it would be the subject of retakes. That meant, as Tomlinson said, that within the design of the system, it was implied that there would be higher grades than would have been the case in the legacy A-level.
	As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made clear, Ministers decided to proceed with A2 without piloting and with limited piloting for AS- levels, and Mr. Tomlinson could find no justification for proceeding without proper piloting of the A2-levels. Nevertheless, those decisions were made. It is clear that the exam boards were unable to find any common standard or any mechanism by which to aggregate the results from different years, with different demands placed upon students, in order to produce one result. They were told that they should try to make that statistically more consistent with the previous year's A-level results, with no mechanism for doing that. The QCA did not give them one.
	More than a year ago, as I said in the course of the speech from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, given the problems that had emerged in relation to the AS-level, the Secretary of State, whom I am pleased to see in her place to hear the debate, said that she would take responsibility for seeing that the reforms would go through in a way that would secure the A-levels as a crucial benchmark of quality. More than a year later, we find that that did not happen. The examination boards had no mechanism established through the QCA to aggregate results in a form that would relate directly the standards from the legacy A-level to the standard set in the new A-level.
	It was to have been a new base year, but by some mechanism—as yet we do not know precisely how it happened—the QCA was encouraging the examination boards to treat the two as though they were precisely the same, when in practice they were different examinations, with different structures, imposing different demands at different stages of the sixth form period. It should have been acknowledged as a new base year, but it was not. The Secretary of State took responsibility more than a year ago for delivering those reforms and making sure that the Department would get them right. They went wrong, as other things went wrong, and the Secretary of State has failed to take responsibility for them today.

Graham Brady: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who made an excellent speech, as is typical of him. He reminded the House that in all the current crises in education, Ministers were warned; Ministers had notice before they happened. They were warned that the way in which they introduced AS-levels and the new sixth form curriculum would cause problems. They proceeded regardless. They were warned that the Criminal Records Bureau could not complete the checks in time for schools to open at the beginning of the school term, and they failed to take action. On all the key issues in education, Ministers have had adequate warning, but their response has been less than adequate.
	Opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) referred to the measure of the Government being intervention without substance, and he prayed in aid the Minister for School Standards, who used the wonderful metaphor of the doughnut—the education policy with a hole in the centre, even though it has a lot of icing on top. It was a brilliant metaphor, if I may say so, and the hon. Gentleman should take full credit for it. It says everything that it is necessary to say about the Government's approach to education.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford went on to speak about the fiasco of the Criminal Records Bureau checks, and the fact that 100 people had been wrongly accused by the Criminal Records Bureau and thousands are stuck in the system. Even more worryingly, perhaps, there has been no common sense and no consistency in the way in which the Government have dealt with that crisis. There was advice from the Secretary of State one day and contrary advice the next. Schools were left for an unacceptably long period not knowing which way to turn. Ultimately, they were left to make their own decisions and to risk the consequences.
	The Minister for School Standards confirmed to me in a written answer today that no guidance was given to the Criminal Records Bureau about the way in which people who have an unbroken record as teachers should be treated. There was no differentiation between those who were applying new, those who had no record of good service in our schools, and those who did have such a record. That, again, was an appalling breach of common sense.
	In the debate we heard about the Government's record on truancy and the fact that another target had been missed. Truancy was meant to go down, but it has gone up. We heard about the Government failing to meet their primary school targets. We heard even from the Secretary of State that she stands by the targets, but I think she said that she had no idea how she would reach them. She thought that they were worth while in themselves, but she had no practical suggestions as to how we would move away from the plateau which she accepted we had reached.

Alan Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he agrees with the statement this afternoon by the leader of his party that A-levels are not worth the paper that they are written on?

Graham Brady: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has bothered to drag himself into the Chamber at this late stage of an education debate to read out a script from his Whips Office. He has done it perfectly well, but what he needs to address, what Ministers need to address, and what the Secretary of State signally failed to deal with earlier is the A-level crisis into which the Government have plunged the country. What he has failed to deal with, what the Secretary of State has failed to deal with—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The House must quieten down.

Graham Brady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that even at this late stage, Labour Members and Ministers will begin to address seriously the crisis facing tens of thousands of young people in our country. Hon. Members are trying to make silly politics out of a situation that has been created entirely by Ministers.
	Mr. Tomlinson, the author of the Tomlinson report, said today:
	XAfter a month of inquiries, I still don't know what the standard ought to be. It is worrying that we have an examination system where the standards have not been adequately defined for examiners, teachers and pupils."
	That is what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) should be addressing, that is what the Secretary of State failed to address at the beginning of the debate, and that is the shameful record that Ministers ought to be defending.
	We heard from the Secretary of State a shockingly complacent catalogue. She believes, apparently, that in the years since she has been a Minister in the Education Department, we have had nothing but success. At a time when we have had a catalogue of errors, crises and mistakes directly attributable to Ministers, she believes that nothing has ever gone wrong. All she is doing today is trying to throw up a smokescreen. On exclusions, she said at the beginning of the debate,XMy views are clear that schools must have the choice". I, on the other hand, have been entirely consistent, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Candy Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: No. The hon. Lady should listen. Having served, as I did, as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, she should know something about the subject. If she, like the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister earlier today, does not understand what the Government have done in relation to exclusions, she should listen.
	The Secretary of State referred to the new guidance that has been introduced for appeals panels. She said nothing about the guidance that was introduced in 1999—the guidance that stated that schools must not exclude pupils under any circumstances until a variety of prior alternative strategies have been tried. That guidance said prior alternative strategies must be tried in respect of teachers who were assaulted or threatened, and the Secretary of State was a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills when it was introduced.
	The Prime Minister said earlier that independent appeals panels were introduced in 1987 by the then Conservative Government. That is true, but let us consider the facts. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State must start to get a grip and take some responsibility, as her fingerprints are on all these issues, going back to 1997. She has had a ministerial role in the Department for Education and Skills as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, a Minister of State and Secretary of State. She was a Minister in 1998 when the new Labour Government gave new powers to the appeals panels to reinstate excluded children. For the first time, those decisions were binding on all parties involved.
	The relevant measures can be found in section 67 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The Secretary of State and I both served on the Standing Committee that considered the measures, which I am sure are currently her bedtime reading; indeed, I imagine that that is one of the reasons why she has sleepless nights. Section 67(1) states:
	XA local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the relevant person to appeal against any decision of the governing body under section 66 not to reinstate a pupil".
	Subsection (3) states:
	XThe decision of an appeal panel on an appeal pursuant to arrangements made under subsection (1) shall be binding on the relevant person, the governing body".
	The Government made appeal panel findings binding. Last week, when the Secretary of State bungled into the circumstances surrounding the exclusions at Glyn school, she did not know the law and made a huge mess as a result.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In my former career as a lecturer, records of achievement were frequently put on my desk. Would the record of achievement of the Tory years be worth the paper that it is written on?

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman has been present for some of the debate, for which I give him credit, but he does not appear to have gained much from the experience. [Hon. Members: XThat's not surprising."] Opposition Members can say that, but I imagine that the hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) have different views, although they may have failed to enlighten their colleagues in their contributions.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman may recall that we served on the Select Committee on Education and Employment when it produced a report on disaffection. Does he agree with the Committee's finding—and there was consensus throughout the Committee—that unnecessary exclusions could be avoided if schools intervened earlier and used different strategies in relation to disruptive behaviour?

Graham Brady: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has made such a sensible point. Of course, nobody wants schools to resort to exclusion where it is unnecessary. On the Glyn school, however, in relation to which the Secretary of State ventured to express the view that pupils should not be excluded, we are considering a case in which it is necessary to exclude and inappropriate to require the school to readmit pupils. None the less, we agree that early intervention is right and she makes an entirely sensible point.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Brady: I have taken a lot of interventions and I should like to make a little more headway, as we do not have much time.
	The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) also contributed to the debate. He is a man for whom I have enormous affection and a very high regard. In the past five years or so, he has perhaps made more contributions that have been a slight irritant to those on his Front Bench than entirely helpful and supportive ones. The fact that he came to the Chamber to make a speech that was entirely an apology for the Government's record demonstrates the depth of the hole into which he thinks that they have already dug themselves. He suggested that the whole thing was about money and that there was no need for anything else in the whole of education policy. He went on to praise the fact that the Government had intervened massively in schools and education, taking away from the rights of parents, heads and teachers to run the affairs of schools. However, he also said that that had gone far enough, that moves should now be made in the opposite direction and that far less intervention was now needed. I was delighted to hear his contribution, but I do not believe that he did justice to the depth of the crisis that is affecting our schools and young people.
	In an excellent and balanced contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) noted that, after trumpeting the importance of breadth with regard to the introduction of AS-levels and curriculum 2000, Ministers went on to reduce that breadth and undo precisely that which had been the intended purpose of introducing AS-levels. The decision was taken by Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills at a time when the Secretary of State was a Minister, so she was again party to that decision.
	The Secretary of State cannot hide from the fact that she has been an Education Minister continuously for the past five years and a part of all the decisions and problems that are now coming home to roost. She has been party to the demoralisation of the teaching profession to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referred. The collapse of discipline is largely due to the new guidance to appeals panels that she and her colleagues introduced—guidance that sought to make it impossible to exclude in any circumstances. As my hon. Friend said, it is now one of the principal reasons why teachers are leaving the profession in droves. The Secretary of State was keen to take credit for the fact that new teachers are coming into the profession. Of course, that is welcome—

Estelle Morris: That is the first time we have heard that.

Graham Brady: That is simply not true. We welcome new teachers coming into the profession, but the Secretary of State must understand that that achieves nothing if she and her colleagues are driving out teachers more rapidly than they can be recruited. The Government's record on exclusions is one of the principal reasons why that has been happening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important contribution in which he spoke about the Government's role in the A-levels fiasco. He tellingly said that life was not a dress rehearsal and mentioned that Ministers had been warned that the fiasco was not over yet.
	All that we have heard from those on the Labour Benches is complacency and self-justification. We have heard no apology for the fact that so many young people have been hurt by their actions and no hint that they understand the harm that has been done to our examinations system and the young people who have been affected. It is time for the Minister to stand up and put that right. He should come to the Dispatch Box with some real contrition and an understanding of the damage that the Government have done. Only if he does so will people have any faith that the Government will be able to restore confidence in the system.

David Miliband: Today's debate has been much more illuminating than any of us could have expected. I shall come to the comments of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in a moment, as I should like first to congratulate some Back Benchers on their excellent contributions. The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) all said that they wanted to congratulate teachers and students throughout the country on the hard work that they are doing and the improvements in their schools, which should be recognised.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) made a typically insightful call for more informed professionalism and devolution of power to head teachers. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman), for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) drew on their experience to talk about how schools were changing in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) did everyone a service by correcting some grotesque misinformation that has been circulated about the local government finance review.
	I should like to pause for a moment to address what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, as he made a serious speech in which he focused on the genuine hurt and anger that many young people rightly feel about the way in which they have been treated this year. In particular, he asked some very detailed questions about the psychology papers of Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations. I cannot answer for the examinations boards and it would be wrong for me to do so, as they are independent bodies. However, I assure him that we will follow independent advice—[Interruption.] This is an independent system that has been supported throughout the years. I assume that he is not calling for the nationalisation of exam boards. We will follow the reform proposals that emerge from the second stage of the Tomlinson inquiry, which will include the role and regulation of exam boards.
	The Back-Bench speeches put to shame the performance of the Opposition Front Bench. Within an hour of the Xquiet man" rubbishing the efforts of hundreds and thousands of students throughout the country, the hon. Member for Ashford came to the Dispatch Box to do a somersault on a policy that he announced only last week.
	It is not AS-levels that are not worth the paper on which they are written, but the titles XLeader of the Opposition" and XConservative spokesman on education". The Government are ready to build up and support our education system, while the Opposition run it down. The motion refers only to confusion and problems; it does not mention the dedication of the nation's teachers or the achievements of the nation's children. It does not refer to improved Ofsted reports or rising teacher numbers. It does not acknowledge that the revenue budget will grow by #1,100 per pupil by 2005–06 or that the capital budget will increase three times.

Chris Grayling: If all is so rosy in the garden, why are so many teachers leaving the profession?

David Miliband: One would not realise from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that there are 20,400 more teachers now than in 1997. Have the Opposition not read the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study, which showed schools' improving performance? Have not they noticed the rising standards in our primary schools, which now lead international practice? Have not they read the chief inspector's report, which states that seven in 10 classes are good and that a quarter are very good, and that nine out 10 schools had improved since the previous inspection? Have not Conservative spokesmen noticed in their constituencies that, for example, #45 million extra has been spent in capital spending in Kent, and that #9 million extra has been spent on buildings in Trafford? The simple truth is that Conservative Members have noticed all those matters, but they cannot admit it. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that he freely admitted that
	XConservative Governments did not do enough for education." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 July 2002; c. 185WH.]
	We agree. No wonder they spent the past week expressing their regret.
	We have increased spending on every child by more than #500 a year in our first five years, whereas the Conservatives cut it by #120 a year. Standards in primary schools have improved dramatically in the past five years; they were stagnant for 18 years under the Conservative party. They are ashamed that although we now have the fastest improving education system in the industrialised world, they took us to 42nd in the world education league.
	The Department, under the Secretary of State, supports good schools. We support good teachers and good performance. We are the first to say that there is further to go. We are not satisfied with simply being better than the Conservative party. We are ambitious for our education system, and we are raising, not lowering, expectations. We know what will make a difference.
	Reform of school leadership is vital so that the 1,400 toughest schools get the extra help that they need to gain the leadership that they deserve. I encourage the hon. Member for Ashford to listen to our plans for the leadership incentive grant, because we shall first offer them to the Conservative party in case it wants to benefit from them.

Andrew Turner: Why is the plan not available to primary schools that are in difficulties?

David Miliband: We have many programmes for primary improvement. The leadership incentive grant is designed to tackle the problem that 50 per cent. of young people leave secondary schools without five good GCSEs. We are proud of achievements in primary schools and we want to go further. However, the priority is the secondary sector. We are therefore committed to improving the structures of secondary schooling, too. We have a special mission for every school and collaboration will also be open to every school. In 57 city academies and 2,000 specialist schools that will give a new start to a comprehensive—I stress the word—intake of young people in areas where the education system has failed.
	The Labour party is leading the way in reforming the school work force. We are providing not simply the 10,000 more teachers that we promised in our manifesto or the 25 per cent. increase in teachers' pay since 1997 but also the extra support staff that will facilitate the contractual change to give teachers time to teach.
	We are also committed to radical reform of partnerships outside the classroom, and responsibilities of parents for discipline exercised outside the courts, not inside them, where the Conservative party wants to drag us. At least, we believed that until today.We want head teachers in the lead, teachers focused on teaching and schools modernised to support high quality learning.
	We have heard much today about A-levels. Three weeks ago, the Opposition called for resignations because the problem was so great. Yesterday, they called for resignations because they were disappointed that it was so small. What are the facts? There is overwhelming support in the education world for broader A-levels. The Government delayed the plans for that which we inherited in 1997. There have been serious failings by the QCA in setting subject-specific grade criteria. There was a perception of pressure by exam board chiefs, not from the Government but from the QCA, to match this year's results with last year's.

Chris Grayling: The Minister claims that the problem is small. Will he apologise for that comment to the more than 1,000 pupils who lost places at the university that they should have attended?

David Miliband: I did not say that the problem was small. I said that Conservative Members spent yesterday claiming that it was small. Mike Tomlinson and Bill Stubbs have made no accusations of political interference. Labour Members are happy to acknowledge rising standards; we shall not spend time attacking the young people who do better. It is time to end the English curse, invoked every year, that somehow more means worse. It does not.
	As long as one third of school classes are not yet good, the Labour party will not rest.

Alistair Burt: Before you leave the A-level examination fiasco, can you answer the question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not answering any questions.

Alistair Burt: Before the Minister leaves the A-level fiasco, will he answer the questions that were posed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and me? If the Department knew everything about the incorrect structure and definition of the examination, why did not the Government take action? That contributed markedly to the failures of the summer. Why did the Minister do nothing?

David Miliband: The answer is simple: we did not know that the A-levels were going wrong. If we had known, we would have corrected the error. [Interruption.] We did not know. The Government are responsible for the structure of the exam system, not the daily assessment procedures. It would be wrong to get involved in them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Miliband: I am very tempted to give way, but I am determined not to do that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

David Miliband: The Labour party will not rest as long as one third of school classes are not good, secondary schools wait for the best classrooms, and working class children are half as likely to get five good GCSEs as upper class children.
	As long as the Conservative party preaches concern and contrition but practises hypocrisy and humbug, we shall not rest. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that Conservatives had to stop living in the past. Today, he must be in despair. They say that travel broadens the mind; it does not for the Conservative party. It has done a U-turn on the AS-levels that it invented; last week, it did a U-turn on appeals panels, which it also invented. At 3 pm today, abolishing appeals panels remained Conservative party policy.

Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?

David Miliband: No, I am winding up. At 4 pm, the hon. Member for Ashford said at the Dispatch Box not that he would abolish appeals panels but that he would reinstate LEA panels to second-guess them. Yet the Conservative party wants to abolish LEAs. It is not fit for Opposition.
	Three years ago, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), as shadow Education Secretary, promised to match Labour spending pound for pound. The hon. Member for Ashford did not say that. He talked to the quiet man from Chingford. The compassionate Conservative stated candidly in a pamphlet two years ago that
	Xpublic services . . . had to be paid for and invested in."
	The quiet man listened, but a nasty man from Folkestone was also present. The hon. Member for Ashford went in saying that spending had attractions in principle—that was the extent of his compassion. He came out saying that cuts were the only option. That is the reality of Conservative policy.
	Last week, the difference between us became clearer. The Government are steadily advancing to spending #5,000 a year per pupil in the state sector. The Conservative party opposes that. However, last week, the hon. Member for Ashford revealed that he was willing to spend #5,000 per pupil on those who go into the private sector. Private good, public bad—they are the same old Tories. Every Conservative Member will be asked from now until polling day why #5,000 is not good enough for state sector education if it is good enough for private education. Parents will ask every Tory Member of Parliament and candidate, XWhy will you spend #5,000 on a few children when you won't spend it on mine?" The hon. Member for Ashford cannot answer that question, which will haunt him.
	One can talk about concern or act on it. One has got to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. We are walking into the Lobby to vote against the motion because that is right for the nation's children. I urge all hon. Members to follow us.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House applauds the priority the Government attaches to education and congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on her excellent leadership of the education system; notes the current record levels of sustained investment in education with an increase from #41.6 billion in 2001–02 to #57.8 billion in 2005–06; welcomes rising standards and progress being made in schools up and down the country, congratulating in particular all those who played a part in achieving the best ever results in literacy and numeracy for 11 year olds, with 75 per cent. making the grade in English and 73 per cent. in mathematics compared with less than a half in 1997; welcomes the importance the Government attaches to tackling indiscipline and non-attendance at schools; notes that while the Criminal Records Bureau continues to improve its performance, the Department's interim XList 99" measures are allowing schools to operate with a full complement of staff; expresses its sympathy for the pupils, parents and teachers who have been affected by the recent 'A' level grading problems; but congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for her decisive action in setting up an independent inquiry under Mike Tomlinson to restore confidence in the exam system.

Rural Economy

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the debate on the rural economy. I should announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises that the livelihood of millions of British people depends on the rural economy; notes that British agriculture is in the throes of its worst recession since the 1930s; regrets the burden of regulation imposed on farms and other rural businesses; expresses concern about the lack of affordable housing and the strain on public services in rural areas; and calls upon the Government to acknowledge the gravity of the crisis in the countryside and to address effectively and urgently the problems faced by rural communities.
	Britain today is an overwhelmingly urban and suburban society. What I found most striking about last month's countryside march was the fact that those who took part identified themselves as a minority in society whose interests were being ignored by those in positions of power. The reasons for that are straightforward. Our farmers and growers are struggling with the worst recession to hit their industry since the 1930s. Red tape and regulation are holding back efforts to develop new enterprises within agriculture or in the wider rural economy. Too often, police officers are not seen on patrol in the village streets but glimpsed occasionally behind the wheel of a passing patrol car. There are severe pressures on transport services and affordable housing, and rural post offices and rural magistrates courts continue to close. All that carries a human cost. The rural stress information network, which is an independent charity, reports that calls to its helpline are now running at twice the rate of two years ago before the foot and mouth epidemic began.
	I admit that the mood in the countryside is not solely due to disillusionment with the present Government. There is also disaffection with the political process and with politicians of all parties. That more general feeling of mistrust found expression in the mass abstention from voting in last year's general election, about which every one of us, from whichever side of the House we come, ought to be concerned. However, it is accurate to say that there is an especially strong sense of grievance against the present Government. It was not a politician but the chairman of another charity, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Mr. Wallis, who last month wrote to the Prime Minister about the views of farmers. His statement sums up the much wider public perception in our rural communities. He wrote:
	XYour Government is, at best, not bothered, at worst hostile to the interests of a strong GB farming industry. It is felt that trust between the farming community and DEFRA is mutually at an all time low."
	The Government started with an enormous fund of good will in rural as well as in urban areas. Part of the reason for this change, which requires some explanation, is the behaviour and language of Ministers. When someone as senior as the Deputy Prime Minister talks in the most scathing terms of
	Xthe contorted faces of the Countryside Alliance"
	he causes real hurt and resentment among the hundreds of thousands of decent men and women who have supported successive peaceful marches and demonstrations. When the Minister for Rural Affairs said that he thought that those who marched last month were a little confused, it spoke volumes about the Government's unwillingness to listen. I genuinely wish that many more Labour Members had come to London on 22 September, not necessarily to agree with all or even some of what the marchers said, but to show, like some of their colleagues, a readiness to listen to the views that were expressed, often in desperate terms, by the marchers that day.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister for the Environment attended the previous countryside march, which we thought was courageous and fair-minded.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the contrast in the behaviour of Ministers then and now. That shows that the confidence that people in the countryside have in the Government has been sapped in the past few years.

Jim Knight: Would the hon. Gentleman blame some of us for not attending the march given the tactics of some of its supporters? A supporter attached to my garden gate a poster advertising the march and took pictures of it, which I assumed would be used in some propaganda. That did not endear me to their cause.

David Lidington: The illicit poster on the hon. Gentleman's gate has obviously been preying on his mind for some weeks, and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to get it off his chest. I do not for a moment defend such action, but he has overlooked the fact that more than 400,000 of our fellow citizens were prepared to give up a Sunday and travel long distances into London if necessary to make their views known. It would have helped not only the Government—I am not usually in the business of trying to help the Government—but the cause of democracy and a sense of reconnection between public and politicians had more than a handful of members and supporters of the Government been present to listen.

Stephen O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who were on the march were conscious of the fact that, even though the Government have argued that this issue is a matter for the House and not for them, as they are merely in charge of the process, the marchers, wherever they came from and whatever principled ground they held, were against the Government of the day and those in power?

David Lidington: I think my hon. Friend has summed up views expressed by a great many people that day.
	The trouble with the Government's approach to rural policy is the same as the trouble with their approach on so many other fronts. All too often, we have seen a gap between what was promised and what has in practice been delivered. The Government—admirably—committed themselves to rural-proofing their policies; yet 12 months after the Government entered into that commitment, the chairman of the Countryside Agency, a Government-appointed chairman of a Government body, reported
	Xmost Departments have done the minimum necessary to introduce rural proofing".
	He stated:
	XI am not convinced that policy makers generally are giving sufficient thought to the impact on the countryside and the people who live there when they develop policies".
	It is not necessary to look far to discover why Mr. Cameron reached that conclusion. Let us consider the representation. Ministers are still committed to a system of regional government that will inevitably take power and influence away from rural communities. In the sort of regional assembly that Ministers envisage, with perhaps 30 elected members from across the region—30 members probably picked in accordance with some region-wide party list—the focus is bound to be on the interests of the towns and cities. Their priorities will receive the most attention.

Mark Todd: The regional assemblies will, of course, be introduced only if voted for by the people whom they will seek to represent.
	May I also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the experience of rural development agencies? All of them, I think—in particular, one in my area—have taken a significant interest in the rural economy, in how to make it thrive, and in how to establish a dedicated representative to fulfil the necessary role.

David Lidington: I will go as far as this with the hon. Gentleman. Travelling around the country, I have encountered examples of budgets allocated to regional bodies being spent well; but I have also encountered numerous complaints from elected councillors and others who have said that the bureaucracy involved in trying to obtain a grant from a regional body is so complicated as to deter many grass-roots organisations, even local authorities—especially in rural areas—from making the attempt in the first place.

David Burnside: In the case of regional assemblies, the problem is not grants. Until midnight on Monday, we had an Assembly in Northern Ireland. My views on the Assembly are pretty anti, but all parties in the Assembly—DUP, Ulster Unionist, Alliance, Women's Coalition, you name it: there are so many parties in Northern Ireland—right over to Sinn Fein believed that agriculture in Northern Ireland would be much better served by a regional assembly than by a national Government.

David Lidington: There is, I think, a profound difference between the history and representative traditions of Northern Ireland and those of England. In England in particular, we have looked to counties, boroughs and cities to provide a focus for local representation.

David Curry: I hoped that my hon. Friend would illustrate his concern by reference to Yorkshire and Humberside. North Yorkshire contains 14 per cent. of the population of that region. The remaining 86 per cent. are already in metropolitan areas. Therefore, the fate of two-tier government in Yorkshire and Humberside will be settled by the 86 per cent. who have no experience of it.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend puts his point well. It has also been made to me by people living in rural Northumberland, who are worried about the creation of a north-east regional assembly, and by people living in rural Cheshire and Cumbria who are worried about the possibility of a north-west regional assembly. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) says that exactly the same fears are being expressed in his area.

Patrick Cormack: We do not have natural regions in England. I do not want to contradict what was said by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), but if he is trying to impose that on England, he is talking nonsense. To go against our traditional county structure is to strike a death blow at rural England.

David Lidington: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in both his historical analysis and his understanding of the likely consequences of the regional agenda becoming reality.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington: No. I must make some progress.
	According to some estimates, tourism is now worth about #14 billion to the rural economy in England alone—that is, not counting the other nations of the United Kingdom. The foot and mouth epidemic, followed by the collapse of foreign visits after 11 September, has had a devastating impact on the industry. Many businesses have already gone under. There are nearly 300 fewer entries in the standard guide to bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England this year than there were last year. More than a quarter of owners who have survived say that they do not expect to recover fully until 2003 at the earliest. Yet the Minister's colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been dithering for more than six months about whether to give the English Tourism Council responsibility for marketing England as a tourist destination. The tourism industry is still battling with enormous difficulties, yet because of Government delay and uncertainty the ETC has no marketing budget, no timetable and no plan.
	Tourism, like many other sectors of commerce, will in future have to rely more and more on fast, good-quality electronic communication with its customers. That means access to broadband. People have made the point to me again and again, from Northumberland to Cornwall: without access to broadband, new micro-businesses in the countryside will be at a permanent disadvantage compared with their urban competitors.
	There are issues related to the number of subscribers needed to make broadband economic. I know that British Telecom says that between 200 and 750 would be necessary, but according to other studies as few as 40 might constitute a viable threshold. The broadband link in Cumbria runs underneath Penrith so surely it cannot be right that businesses in that town are denied a connection altogether. Britain now has one of the lowest rates of broadband take-up anywhere in the OECD area, and our rural businesses above all stand to lose out because of the delay. I believe that Government action to tackle the problem—to increase availability of broadband and provide incentives for its provision in rural areas—would command strong cross-party support in the House.
	People need somewhere to work in the countryside. They also need somewhere to live, and rural homes are becoming less affordable. According to the Countryside Agency, nearly two thirds of people living in rural areas would need to spend more than half their incomes on mortgages to buy an average home. Part of the answer certainly lies in the provision of more homes, and the great merit of the policy announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is that it would provide funds to pay for perhaps as many as 13,000 new homes every year nationwide.
	Clearly there would be a need for particular measures, as exist in the present legislative system whereby small estates in small village communities are subject to particular arrangements.

Mark Todd: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to develop that point. In the tiny hamlet of Thurvaston in south Derbyshire, three housing association homes were recently constructed by agreement with the local landowner. I can tell the hon. Gentleman for free that if those were made available for sale, they would rapidly disappear and not be replaced. How does he intend to address that kind of problem?

David Lidington: There are a number of ways in which we intend to address the problem that the hon. Gentleman has rightly identified. First, there will undoubtedly remain a strong case for having an exceptional arrangement for designated small rural communities as currently exists under the present law. Whether the limit should remain as it is under the current arrangements is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is consulting the interested bodies.
	Secondly, there is the need not just to provide only accommodation to rent, but accommodation for shared ownership. That proposal has been made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden by the Rural Housing Trust, and he is discussing it with the trust and other parties.
	The point that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has overlooked is that the chief complaint by those who have objected to the right to buy in the past has been that tenants had the right to purchase their house but that the money received by the local authority could not then be used to provide additional housing. The Opposition are now committed to a policy that will free housing associations to spend the receipts from the sale of those housing association properties on the provision of new homes. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman made a serious point that deserves a serious answer.
	The trouble with the arguments put forward by Labour Members is that they are trying to conceal the fact that they remain instinctively hostile not just to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden proposed last week, but to the whole notion that tenants should be enfranchised and have the right to buy their own homes. If the Minister for Rural Affairs or the Under-Secretary is prepared to stand up and say, not just to this House but to the tenants of housing associations throughout the country, that the Labour party remains adamantly opposed to tenants being granted the right to buy, my hon. Friends and I will be glad to take that message back and campaign on it in counties and cities throughout this land.
	I am glad that it was the hon. Member for South Derbyshire who intervened earlier, because I said that while part of the problem was that we needed to provide new homes, we must also make sure that the homes were in the right places. I want to refer to something that the hon. Gentleman has said in the past. The Government's top-down approach is wrong. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be rushing to concrete over great swathes of southern England and, in the process, is planning to build large new estates in some areas that are already relatively low cost. Surely we need instead a policy that begins with a sensible analysis of local need.
	The Rural Housing Trust argued in a paper earlier this year for the provision of six to eight subsidised homes in each of 8,000 small villages throughout England—roughly 50,000 more homes in total—but sited in places where there was a proven local need that the local community would accept. I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for South Derbyshire too much but I was impressed by an exchange that he had in the Select Committee on 21 November last year with a senior executive of the Countryside Agency.
	The hon. Member for South Derbyshire acknowledged that an over-rigid approach to planning guidance, and particularly to PPG13, was tending to focus development exclusively in so-called key settlements, with a lot of smaller communities being, in his words, Xeffectively preserved in aspic" and therefore becoming more exclusive and less sustainable over time. I hope that the Government will look seriously at their planning guidance in light of our experiences as a country and at the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman has rightly identified.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington: No. The hon. Gentleman had one intervention about his front gate. I do not want a tour around his entire garden.
	The rural economy is about a lot more than farming but farming still lies at its heart. Agriculture is not only important economically; farmers and growers are also custodians of a landscape that is valued by people in cities as well as villages and is a prime asset for our tourist industry.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crisis in rural areas predates the election of the Labour Government? For instance, farm incomes were falling under the previous Conservative Government and the fuel tax escalator imposed an added burden on rural communities. Also, the one episode in particular that precipitated the crisis in the countryside would have to be the BSE disaster, over which his Government presided.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman will know that most of the subjects that we are debating today are, in Scotland, devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, I take his point seriously. I will not quibble about statistics; the historians can argue over those. I am willing, as is my party, to learn the lessons of our period in government. We can learn where we got things right and where we got them wrong. What we ask of the present Government is that they be prepared to learn from their experiences over the past five years when they have failed to deliver on the promises that they were so keen to make to people in our rural communities.
	It is true that farm incomes, employment and investment have all plunged in the last few years. It is true that no Minister—not even one as benevolent as the Minister for Rural Affairs—can simply wish away the problems caused by international commodity prices, world competition and fluctuating exchange rates. But that makes it even more important that the Government act firmly and effectively on those matters that do lie within their own power.
	Britain's farmers need a fair deal from current European negotiations. The best future for farming lies in moving towards a system where farmers are free to respond to what their customers want rather than to the edicts of Government, whether in Whitehall or in Brussels. It is right also to find ways to recognise the public good that farmers and growers provide for the nation in terms of landscape and biodiversity. Some of the key elements in Commissioner Fischler's proposals—such as the ceiling on payments and the idea of putting modulation receipts into a common European pot—seem to have been designed quite deliberately to discriminate against British agriculture. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are determined to resist such discrimination.
	There are many things that the Government could do now, without the need for international negotiations, to assist British agriculture. Top of that list must be, at last, some effective action against the illegal importing of meat. We know that the Government's assessment is that that was almost certainly the cause of the foot and mouth disaster. The Government are always lecturing farmers about the importance of biosecurity. It is about time that we saw the Government taking seriously their own responsibilities for biosecurity at our ports.
	If one flies from London to Dublin, as I did last month, one finds when one arrives in Ireland a terminal plastered with posters warning that meat is not to be brought in. There is a disinfectant point, clearly signed, for travellers who have visited a farm or who are otherwise considered high risk. There is a large amnesty bin in which passengers can dump their ham sandwiches or whatever else they might have brought with them. All of these measures were introduced by the Irish Government in response to the epidemic here in 2001, even though there was only one case of foot and mouth disease on the island of Ireland.
	When one returns to terminal 1 at Heathrow, one finds nothing. There are no bins, posters or disinfectant points. From written answers, we know that the number of spot checks carried out at ports and airports is pitifully low and that there are still no clear lines of command between the different agencies that share responsibility for port controls.
	We are now a year on from the last case of foot and mouth, and we are six months on from the Government's misnamed Xaction plan" on illegal meat imports. Their sloth and incompetence on this issue is nothing short of a disgraceful failure to carry out their public duty.

David Curry: My hon. Friend has made that charge on his own account, but I should point out that when Professor Follett, who chaired the inquiry into the science of foot and mouth disease, was asked during today's Select Committee meeting what he would like to see following the Government's action plan, he replied XAction."

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend demonstrates that the views that we are expressing on this matter command wide support in the country. People are experiencing a mixture of bafflement and anger at the Government's failure to act on a matter that they themselves have said is important.

Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend mentions terminal 1 and flights from Ireland. Of course, a lot of the infected meat comes from Africa and the middle east, and at the Heathrow terminals that handle those flights there is no warning either.

David Lidington: I hope that, if nothing else, after this debate Ministers will take the steps that they promised they would take six months ago, and ensure that fairly straightforward measures such as warning posters and amnesty bins are at last delivered.
	Farmers want action on food labelling, too. Often, it is far too difficult for shoppers to find out whether the food that they buy is British and meets this country's stringent standards on hygiene and animal welfare. It is more than two years since the Prime Minister promised the National Farmers Union that he would introduce new labelling guidance to ensure that foreign goods are not passed off as British simply because they have been processed here. Yet the Government that he leads blocked a Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), which tried to give that promise the backing of law. If the Government are not prepared to look again at this issue, we will look for an opportunity to bring the matter back for further debate.
	Like other businesses, farmers are struggling day by day with the cost in time and money caused by Government regulation. Too often—far too often—new rules are being brought in with scant regard to their practical impact on people who are trying to run small businesses. European legislation on nitrates and on environmental impact assessments has been gold plated in Whitehall. Burying fallen stock on-farm will be illegal from May next year, yet the Government have still given us no details on how alternative arrangements are supposed to work, or on who will pay for them. At the moment, those farmers who live within reasonable distance of a hunt can get rid of livestock carcases; however, the Government have their own plans for that source of help as well. That problem is causing particular anxiety in upland areas. The subject was raised with me by the National Farmers Union in Wales and the Farmers Union of Wales when I met their representatives.
	The 20-day rule on livestock movements in England and Wales is causing enormous practical problems for farmers. I remember attending the Hexham auction market—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—and listening to sheep farmers. They said that they would have to choose between going to a ewe sale one week or a lamb sale the next, because it was impossible to do both.

Mark Todd: Since the Chairman of the Select Committee referred to one thing that Sir Brian Follett said, perhaps I can refer to another. He was questioned on the 20-day movement restrictions, and referred back to the experience of restrictions on pigs. Again, he recalled outrage at the implications, said that that industry had accepted that that was the right thing to do, and rather suspected that the same view might be taken some years hence.

David Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman refers to Sir Brian Follett's original report and to Dr. Anderson's report, he will find two further things. First, they recognised that there were profound differences between the structure of the pig industry and of the sheep and cattle sectors. Both men drew attention to the serious practical difficulties that they acknowledged would be caused, were the 20-day rule to be maintained. They also said that the Government should carry out an urgent cost-benefit analysis of the 20-day rule. Frankly, the Government have known since before those inquiries were set up that this was one of the big issues to be determined. That we are still waiting for the Government to reach a conclusion again indicates a complete unreadiness to face up to the difficulties that country businesses are experiencing.

David Curry: There may be a case for one set of restrictions on movement, but of course we have two sets, because we have different systems north and south of the border. Does my hon. Friend think that, in Scotland, it is the sheep, the farmers or the politicians who are more intelligent than their counterparts in England?

David Lidington: It is probably not among the sheep or the farmers where a difference in intelligence, or perhaps in judgment, exists. I have seen no hint from Ministers that farms in England or Wales are at risk of a renewed outbreak of foot and mouth disease because no border is being enforced between England and Scotland. Ministers have so far been unable to explain why a system in Scotland can exist alongside a completely different, far more stringent one south of the border.
	What makes matters worse is the incompetence that the Government too often display in administering their own rules. The Rural Payments Agency could not meet its legal deadline for payments to cattle farmers, and we learned this week that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs still owes some #100 million to contractors that it employed to clean up farms infected with foot and mouth. The memory of the Government's mishandling of that epidemic still rankles with many thousands of people in our countryside. There was inadequate contingency planning, delay in calling in the Army, confusion over the contiguous cull and question marks over its legality. The experience of many people, particularly those in the areas hit hardest by the disease, was—to quote Cumbria county council's inquiry team—one of Xconfusion, disorder and delay".
	How that contrasts with the vision painted in the Government's rural White Paper: a vision of
	Xa living, protected and vibrant countryside . . . one where people have access to the jobs and services they require . . . a countryside that can shape its own future, with its voice heard by Government at all levels."
	That was a statement with which few could disagree, and it undoubtedly commanded widespread support in all parts of this country. That there is now such disillusion and discontent is above all down to the Government's blatant and repeated failure to deliver on the promises that they so glibly made.

Alun Michael: I am delighted that the Conservative party has at last woken up to the fact that the rural economy is an important issue. [Interruption.] It was noticeable that, in introducing the debate, the party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), went very wide of the topics in the motion. I am glad that he quoted our purposes for the countryside—on which we are delivering—in his closing remarks. The Opposition are catching up with Labour's 180 rural and semi-rural MPs, whose pressure on their constituents' behalf since 1997 has led to the rural White Paper, to a raft of specific economic measures, to the rural service standard, and to the rural proofing of policies. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the latter, which was described as courageous by Ewen Cameron, the Government's rural advocate, from whom the hon. Gentleman quoted so selectively.
	The hon. Gentleman was very selective in the way that he addressed even the issues covered in his own motion. The Government have acted to help rural businesses and the rural economy as a whole, not just farming. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent march in London, so let me say to him what I said at that time. There was muddle at the heart of the march. The organisers were muddled. After the march, they had to produce a 10-point argument to explain why they organised a march in London. I received a small number of letters afterwards from people who took issue with the suggestion that there was a muddle at the heart of the march. Those who wrote said that they were not confused and that they knew why they had attended the march, but they all quoted different reasons for their presence. There was a muddle at the heart of the march.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I shall give way with pleasure.

James Gray: After the march, the Minister made some remark to the effect that he had no idea what it was all about and that it was all a muddle. Will he explain why the No. 10 lobby briefing of the next day presented a different case? It was stated then that the Prime Minister knew precisely what the march was about, that he was extremely concerned about the issues raised and that he would do something about them. Why is the Minister singing a different tune from the Prime Minister?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is a shadow spokesman on economic issues but has apparently been left out of this debate, so I understand that he needs to make his voice heard at some point. However, if he had waited a moment he would have heard me say that most of the problems listed in the motion have not appeared since 1997 but have been building up over the past 25 years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister responded courteously to the 10 matters listed by the Countryside Alliance after the march in September. Subsequently, I responded in great detail to each of the issues. I explained where the Government stood on them, and pointed out what we were doing about them.
	The Countryside Alliance knows that we take the matter seriously, because we have given it a seat at the table—a place on the Rural Affairs Forum for England. To be fair to the alliance, I must say that it has worked constructively with the Government on a series of issues, but let us have no more nonsense suggesting that there was clarity behind the march.
	In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Aylesbury rightly acknowledged that any sense of grievance is aimed not only at this Government but at all politicians. The real damage to rural economies—as with urban areas—was done in the 18 years of damage and neglect under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. [Interruption.] Of course Opposition Members do not like to hear that: throughout those 18 years, they tried to blame the previous Labour Government. Even 17 years into the Conservative Government's rule, they were still looking to the previous Administration. They will therefore be reminded of their faults and of the evils of the Conservative Administration.
	The Labour party was the first political party to devote a national conference to rural issues, which all the interested parties attended. The National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, voluntary organisations and the Countryside Alliance, as well as representatives of local government, animal welfare organisations and business, were there because they were able to debate with Labour MPs and Ministers the issues that affect rural economies.

Edward Leigh: Does the Minister accept that country people feel that they are losing their roots and tradition, and that they do not have enough impact on national affairs? When people in Lincolnshire are asked where they live, they say not that they live in West Lindsey or the east midlands but that they live in Lincolnshire. Why do the Government intend to proceed with a proposal that will abolish 1,000 years of English history? It will remove a golden thread running through people's lives. Before the Minister says that there will be a vote on the matter, I remind him that people in rural in Lincolnshire will be outvoted by people in the big cities of Nottingham and Derby. Will he give those rural people some sort of veto? Why is he trying to abolish what they hold most dear?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a rather delphic utterance. If he is referring to regional government, I can tell him that, since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, rural interests and the rural economy in Wales have been more extensively debated in the Assembly, and especially in its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. The Assembly has increased the level of interest and debate, and has also delivered a better standard of debate.

Jim Knight: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that people look to their county, district, borough and city councils, but he did not mention parish councils. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that parish councils are especially important in rural areas, and that this Government are acting to improve parish councils' powers and responsibilities?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall turn to the role of parish councils later in my speech. This Government are the first to focus on developing the role of parish councils, but Opposition Members have never understood that and, in government, they have never tried to do it.

Gregory Barker: I—and I am sure many other hon. Members—have received letters from parish councillors who, after years of loyal service to their communities, have resigned in disgust at the new regulations placed on them by the Government. How many such letters has the Minister received?

Alun Michael: The number is very small indeed, but I have received many letters from parish councillors around the country welcoming the way in which the Government are strengthening the role of parish councils. We have given those councils grants so that they have money to spend on matters such as transport and the development of parish plans. That allows parish councils to develop their role and to look after their communities' interests. A few Conservative parish councillors have stood down, and some people have been misled by incorrect information being circulated by a member of the Conservative party. The Government are working with parish councils, local government and the people who represent rural communities across the country.

Angela Browning: Why did the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 remove the right of parish councillors to nominate governors to local village schools?

Alun Michael: I am not going to develop education policy. I am talking about the role of parish councils and how the Government are enabling them to take the lead in their communities so that they can develop answers to local problems.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury had quite a bit to say about farming. There are genuine, serious and deep-seated problems in that sector, which have been developing for years. Under this Government, those problems are being tackled comprehensively for the first time. It is widely recognised that the Curry commission on the future of farming and food has given the answer to the problems faced by the farming industry. We are putting in #1.7 billion through the England rural development programme. Help is being provided on a variety of matters, including diversification and marketing. A direct comparison can be made: this Government are making available #240 million a year, compared with the #56 million a year made available between 1993 and 1999.
	It is vital, however, that we secure effective reform of the CAP, and drive modernisation in the farming industry. Reform is needed to make our agriculture more competitive and more sustainable, and to ensure that our rural economies can flourish despite the challenges ahead.

Peter Atkinson: The Minister mentioned the Curry report. Many would agree that it was very sensible. Sir Donald Curry said that the farming industry would need #400 million a year, but the Government have offered #200 million in two years' time.

Alun Michael: No, that is a misinterpretation. The figure for the third year of the spending review alone is #200 million, and #500 million is the overall figure.
	The Government are working with the farming industry to deliver on the Curry report. The Opposition may say now that that is common sense, but no previous Government have adopted such a comprehensive approach. It was a courageous step to take.
	The food and farming sector makes an economic contribution, but farming also has a role to play in the countryside in respect of the landscape. We all value our landscape, but farmers, given that they manage some 77 per cent. of UK land, make a significant contribution to protecting the rural environment.

Pete Wishart: Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who described farmers as subsidy junkies?

Alun Michael: Many farmers accept that there is a serious point to be made about the extent to which farming has become dependent on subsidy instead of becoming competitive and effective. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meet farmers all the time, and we have detected a remarkable shift in attitude. The shift took place in part during the foot and mouth outbreak, when people realised how vulnerable the industry was. Many matters were brought to a head at that time. We need to move away from a culture of subsidy in the farming industry, and towards a culture that assists the industry to be competitive. In addition, the agri-environment schemes are designed to pay for things that provide a public good.

Simon Thomas: Will the Minister explain how the British dairy industry can be 30 per cent. more efficient than the dairy industry on the continent, yet can be underpriced continually by that industry? Supermarkets can buy milk from France and Ireland, for instance, at prices lower than those charged by our dairy industry. Are there not both institutional and fiscal reasons for that? Do not the Government need to do more work on the euro and commodity prices to ensure that our farmers are truly competitive? Is not it wrong for the Minister to blame farmers for not being able to face the market, when the Government are closing the gates to that market?

Alun Michael: There have been problems for many years in the milk industry—

Elliot Morley: It is a supply and demand problem.

Alun Michael: Indeed. One difficulty is that co-operatives in continental countries are far stronger than those in this country. A point stressed by the Curry report, and one that I strongly applaud, is the need to strengthen the co-operative culture so that farmers can take a greater part of the shelf price, which goes back to the primary producers. We strongly support that element of the Curry report—recognising the need to strengthen the requirements on competition.
	Countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive areas, the two main agri-environment schemes, are delivering more than #100 million a year to maintain and enhance the rural environment. The schemes have 26,000 agreement holders and cover about 1 million hectares—almost 10 per cent. of agricultural land. I emphasise that we need to make use of the money that is being invested in agriculture to reform farming and to give it a sustainable future. The problems will not be solved overnight, but we are working on them with the industry.
	The picture painted by the Conservatives is a travesty. A few days ago, the Prime Minister pointed out that our commitment to a future for farming means that more money is going into that industry than into all other industries put together. The industry is important; it is vital for our countryside, but we must put it in balance. The motion refers to the wider rural economy and rural communities—the real rural agenda. People in rural areas want the same things as people in urban areas: jobs, access to services, a good standard of schools and education, health services, transport, affordable housing and a secure future. They have the same aspirations as people in urban areas, but sometimes there is a different set of problems in respect of the delivery of those services.
	In urban areas, it is often possible to target problems by measuring them at ward level, but it is difficult to do that in rural areas. Communities are dispersed and so are their problems. People who need help are often dispersed throughout largely prosperous areas.

Oliver Letwin: Before the Minister moves away from farming, will he explain the implication of the extremely interesting statement that he has just made? Is he saying that the Government will reverse their policy on breaking up Milk Marque?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are encouraging the development of co-operatives; that is part of the Curry agenda and we strongly support it. I appreciate that he wants to take me back in my speech, just as his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Aylesbury, wanted to evade the terms of the Conservative motion. We want to encourage co-operatives—small businesses, new businesses and entrepreneurship—to work together to improve the standard of living of people in rural communities.
	As I have just pointed out, the problems for rural communities are extremely local. We have a large number of small communities; for example, there are about 8,000 parish and town councils. They are experiencing the impact of social and economic change. It is a fact of life that many people in rural communities also have access to supermarkets. They have the choice of shopping locally or in neighbouring towns or cities. It does not help to play politics with such issues.
	The long-term social trends are difficult for rural communities. They present choices for local government and local people as well as for the Government. We are trying to enable people and communities to make those choices, which is why the work of the Countryside Agency is so important. Through the finance strands that we make available, the agency offers people a chance to take decisions about their futures at the most local level.

David Curry: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that one almost hidden countryside industry is the care of the elderly. The local residential home may be the largest employer in many villages. Is he aware of the pressure being put on the sector because of local authority difficulties in funding care? What representations has DEFRA made in the name of joined-up government to the Deputy Prime Minister's Department about funding super-sparsity in rural areas and assisting sectors on which many people depend for part-time employment, not least to buttress agricultural incomes?

Alun Michael: I shall develop those points in a moment. We are working with colleagues throughout the Government, especially in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to consider the needs of rural areas. Indeed, my right hon. Friend is taking a personal interest in issues such as the need for affordable housing in rural areas.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) makes very well the point that I was coming to: if we are to help rural economies, we have to understand them. I spent most of today with the Countryside Agency, which plays a vital role in this field. The agency rightly made the point that to maintain and extend the significant contribution that rural economies make to the UK economy—they benefit not only themselves but the wider economy—requires better engagement with those business sectors that make the most important contributions to rural economies.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to farming and I have responded because it is important. However, almost 80 per cent. of the 5.22 million employees in rural workplaces work in four broad industrial groups about which we have heard nothing: for example, distribution, hotels and restaurants. Nowadays, more people in the rural economy are employed in tourism than in farming. People work in public administration, education and health—the sector to which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred. They work in manufacturing, banking, finance and insurance. The pattern is repeated in 65 per cent. of rural economies or 95 of the 145 rural local authority areas. We need to pay more attention to their economic footprint on rural England. Sometimes, that may not happen because such employment is also dominant in many urban districts, but it is also part of the positive and necessary engagement with farming.
	It is important, for example, that in some of our most beautiful landscapes—our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—we also engage with the local economy and community, so that they can truly be test-beds for sustainable development and that they do not turn into landscape museums.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not only in respect of housing that the planning system is desperately in need of reform. In the countryside, we have the capacity to regenerate rural areas because there are many vacant or under-used buildings—usually farm buildings. I am sure that my experience is shared by many hon. Members: there is often great conflict between those who want to develop such buildings and those who want to pickle them in aspic—to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). We have to make people understand that if they want the countryside to live we must develop those buildings. I hope that changes to the planning system will allow that to happen.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. I am pleased about the interest shown by my noble Friend Lord Rooker, who deals with housing. He will attend the next meeting of the Rural Affairs Forum to debate the issue with representatives and colleagues. At the forum's last meeting, one of his officials was present to hear the views of people across the board, to ensure that those views are fed into the processes. There is no magic wand; what one person wants to do may have an impact on neighbours. The planning processes have to be followed with balance and care, but my hon. Friend is right to point up their importance.
	We need to examine the potential for growth in rural communities. I have stressed the importance of the horse industry and have met its representatives on several occasions recently.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to access to broadband. That, too, is important and I met BT for discussions about it earlier this month. However, it is essential to be precise about what we want it to do. Broadband is not a magic wand that will suddenly do away with problems in rural areas; it offers potential but it must be used with precision and planning.

Mark Todd: My right hon. Friend briefly touched on the horse sector, and I saw one or two other hon. Members nod their agreement about its importance. That sector is clearly growing in my constituency, but, once again, it would be facilitated by a careful examination of the planning regime that applies to the development of not only the more serious horse enterprises, but those that provide more rough and ready leisure pursuits.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we are working with the industry to identify what is needed to help it to expand.
	The point that I am making strongly is that the Government are listening. We recognise that there are issues that need tackling to achieve our vision, which was so eloquently quoted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, of a living, working, protected and vibrant countryside, but we are taking action and we have made considerable progress. We are committed to engaging and working with people in the countryside to develop solutions.

David Taylor: Before the Minister moves on from equestrian activities, may I tell him that a farrier came to see me at my advice session on Saturday because he was concerned, not surprisingly, about the impact of a possible ban on hunting? Nevertheless, I put it to him that the probable disappearance of hunting is likely to be associated with an expansion in equestrian activity when the stigma of it being linked to hunting is removed. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Alun Michael: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I shall not expand on that topic during this debate, as I am sure that we will discuss it in the near future.
	The Government are trying to govern for all the country. The rural economy is a part of the national picture. Effective national policies benefit everyone, irrespective of whether they live in rural or urban areas. Our economic policy has led to the United Kingdom having the lowest inflation rate in Europe and the lowest in this country for 30 years. That benefits the rural economy. We have the lowest long-term interest rates and mortgage rates for homeowners for 40 years. Unemployment in Britain is lower than at any time for 25 years. Some 1.5 million more jobs have been created, and long-term youth unemployment—once 350,000—is now just 5,000.
	To those Opposition Members who wish to talk down the rural economy let me say this: unemployment is down 36 per cent. in rural areas, compared with a drop of 31 per cent. in urban areas. Rural areas have benefited massively from the drop in unemployment that the Government have achieved, and other national policies benefit rural areas, too. Putting schools and hospitals first, with the biggest ever sustained increases in public investment, help both the rural and urban economies. The adoption of the minimum wage has raised incomes in rural areas. Indeed, the benefits to low-paid people in rural areas are probably greater than to those in urban areas.
	What about the Conservative party's record on school closures? Three rural schools a year have closed since 1997, and only five have closed since 2000. Between 1983 and 1997, the closure rate was 30 a year. I am not surprised that Conservative Members look embarrassed.

Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend mentioned the minimum wage. We hear much about falling farmers' incomes, but, earlier today at Prime Minister's questions, once again we heard an appeal, loud and clear, from the Opposition to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. What good would that do to our rural economy?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Such a decision would be extremely damaging, which is why Ministers have not supported it.
	I want to look further at the question of essential services because people need to have access to high-quality public services no matter where they live. Let us consider affordable homes. Since 1997, the Government have doubled the funding for creating affordable homes to #1.2 billion a year, which is supporting the creation of 20,000 affordable homes every year. The Housing Corporation's rural affordable housing programme has also been doubled. We are ahead of the target set out in the rural White Paper. Restrictions on the right to buy in rural areas have helped, as has judicious use of planning powers by local authorities. We recognise that more needs to be done, but we are working in partnership with employers and public and private landlords. It is worth noting that, since 1997, 20 per cent. of social housing has been built in rural areas.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury may think that it was a clever ploy to suggest a change in the arrangements last week—he has wisely rowed back from what was said then—but the right to buy led to a loss of 91,000 homes from the social rented sector in rural areas between 1985 and 1990. That would be okay if those homes were being replaced, but it is hardly a blinding flash of inspiration to accelerate the loss. We need to ensure that affordable housing is there not just for the short term, but for the long term.
	The question of choice and enabling people to have a decent start in life and being able to own their own homes is part of a wider picture, and there is no quick fix. The Rural Housing Trust, with which I have had discussions, and other organisations—charities, as well as housing associations—have a major contribution to make. It is worth making the point again that the target of 60 per cent. of new homes being built on brownfield land has been met eight years earlier than was forecast. The Opposition seem to suggest that there is some sort of threat to the greenbelt, but 30,000 hectares have been added to it since 1997.
	Let us consider health and social services. By 2004, there will be 100 new primary care, one-stop or mobile units, 5,000 intermediary care beds in rural areas, and guaranteed access to primary care within 24 hours and a doctor within 48 hours. NHS Direct is now available throughout England, and it is having an even greater impact in rural areas than in urban areas.

Mark Francois: The Minister is talking about access to doctors. Is he aware that my constituency has the fourth largest ratio of patients to GPs in the United Kingdom, that some GPs are about to retire and that those services are beginning to approach crisis point? How can he make those brave boasts about increased access to GPs when the shortage of GPs is already a growing crisis around the United Kingdom?

Alun Michael: Has not the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Government are training more doctors and more nurses, so making available the people who will start to fill those gaps? We are trying to ensure that they can be recruited to provide the service in rural areas, as well as in urban areas. We are trying to deliver services for the whole population, not just for segments of it.
	On post offices, there is a requirement to maintain the rural network. Net closures fell from 435 in 2000–01 to 210 in 2001–02 and we are working with local communities and local government to try to ensure that there is no loss from the network. As with shops, there is a challenge to local communities to choose to use facilities to ensure that they are viable and can be maintained.
	We recognise the differential needs of rural and urban communities. For example, the new rural police fund has injected an extra #30 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03. The fund was based on research into the cost of providing a rural police service, rather than research into the level of crime. I can say with some pride that I commissioned the research on which that decision was taken when I was deputy Home Secretary.

Mark Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way once again and draw his attention to the experience in rural south Derbyshire, where a mobile police station, manned by two officers, has been dedicated to the task of working with rural communities, specifically farmers concerned about farm crime. I do not recall that service under the Conservative Government.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes his point very well indeed.
	Throughout the country, I do not find that all the problems to do with fear of crime or those to do with housing or transport have been resolved, but people are more and more frequently saying, XSomething has changed. Things are being done as a result of the Government's actions." For example, we have put #239 million over the three years of the spending period into public transport. We have 1,800 new or improved bus routes in England and 81 rural transport partnerships. We have created the formal presumption against closing rural schools, and only three schools have closed since 2001, compared to 30 between 1983 and 1997.

Mark Simmonds: Will the Minister provide an assurance this evening that he will fight within the Government to ensure that the proposed changes in local government funding, which will have a direct impact on the amount of resources going to Lincolnshire and other shire counties, will not happen? Will he also fight within Government against Home Office proposals to change the way in which police authorities are funded in rural areas, to ensure that there are no cuts in Lincolnshire or other shire counties?

Alun Michael: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am bringing to the attention of colleagues across Government the needs of rural communities, and that we are discussing these matters sensibly. I must tell him, however, that anybody who has had experience of formulae, and of what happens when any formula is changed, whether in relation to local government, the police service or health—I have had experience of all three—will know the complexities involved and the unintentional outcomes when one seeks to make such changes. It is a difficult, delicate issue that does not get easier as time goes on.
	I have illustrated that, in a series of areas, we have brought rural policy into the centre of government. The commitment on rural issues is reflected in central Government by the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the specific aim of achieving thriving rural economies and communities, bringing new focus and drive to the Government's policies for rural England. The establishment of the Countryside Agency, with a budget of some #90 million a year, is helping to deliver integrated and sustainable rural policy. It delivers important programmes combining social and community interests with economic and environmental needs, such as the vital villages and market towns initiatives, and has piloted innovative schemes to ensure that rural people get the services that they need.

Bill Wiggin: rose—

Richard Bacon: rose—

Alun Michael: I have spoken for some time and have given way repeatedly to Opposition Members. I think that I need to make a little progress to allow other Members on both sides of the House to enter the debate.
	We are helping local groups to make the connection between their needs and opportunities, such as that developed by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) with the local parish council—runners-up in the local parish council of the year award—in Waters Upton. Shop and pub closures have been recognised as issues with which local people need to engage. A recent pub closure led to a telling comment from the landlord, who said, XThe problem is that I have trade during the summer when we have visitors and walkers in the area, but local people are not using the pub." The challenges are therefore not only for Government but for local communities in the choices that they make.
	The Government are listening to the real concerns of rural people to find solutions, and are working with people on those solutions. We have set up the Rural Affairs Forum for England, which I chair, which works with representatives of all strands of rural opinion, giving rural people a voice at the heart of government. Every region has its own rural affairs forum with representation on the national forum, and sub-groups deal with specific issues such as tourism and urban-rural linkages. Next month, in conjunction with the forum, we are holding a rural conference for the first time to discuss the interdependence between towns and countryside. Opposition Members should work with us to try to recreate linkages and understanding between urban and rural areas rather than encouraging the idea of a divide.
	We are not just listening; we are committed to working in partnership to achieve our aims. For instance, the XYour Countryside, You're Welcome" campaign was designed to assist rural communities to recover this year after the impact of foot and mouth disease. We are also working with the Countryside Alliance on its XFood Fortnight". We can work with all sorts of people to improve the economy and the quality of life in rural areas. We need to reconnect rural people with urban people, however, because we need each other. We need to get rid of the talk of urban-rural divides.
	As I said earlier, we appreciate and value the contribution that parish councils make to local democracy, but they can do more. We are committed to giving them a greater role in leading and invigorating their communities. The quality town and parish council scheme will give country towns and villages more scope to shape their future and make local government in the countryside more responsive to local needs. We provided #2 million to help establish a national training and support strategy for towns and parish councils. I am very pleased to hear the responses from the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils, and parish councillors up and down the country, such as those whom I met recently in the Forest of Dean and west Lancashire. We seek to work with parish councils to enhance their role. The message is getting through and it is making a difference.
	There are many example of how people in rural areas can take a grip of, and improve, their future. The vital villages project and the information provided by the Countryside Agency show how we can work with the agency and local government to improve the quality of life. Major challenges face rural communities along with those of maintaining a positive quality of life and the environment that is so valued. We are taking action to address the problems that exist and many improvements can be seen, although more needs to be done. We are committed to working with all those who share the Government's vision for the countryside and will empower communities to develop local solutions.

Malcolm Bruce: This is an important debate, but it will be short and I fear that not many Members will be able to participate. Indeed, at one point, I thought that we would go straight from the Front-Bench speeches to the wind-ups.
	I am astonished that the Tories should choose to debate the rural economy, given their record in government. It is worth recording what they did to it. They started by cutting independent agricultural research and compromised advice for their own policy. As a result of that, they presided over a series of catastrophic disasters in farming and the rural economy. They cut the number of government scientific offices and of vets. We then found ourselves with the catastrophe of BSE, which they were slow to acknowledge and to respond to. Indeed, they tried to cover it up until it was impossible to conceal the scale of the disaster that we faced.
	Not only that, at a time when farmers faced the adverse effects of the exchange rate, the Tories consistently refused to pass on the full agrimonetary compensation to which farmers were entitled. The Tories consequently contributed to the depression of farm incomes.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish my description of this catalogue of disasters? The Tories sold off affordable housing in rural areas—we have debated that—and they now want to flog off the rest as their contribution to the viability of rural economies. They completely failed to acknowledge that their wholesale privatisation programme and the centralisation of services withdrew services and jobs from, and undermined the viability of, rural communities.

Martin Salter: rose—

Colin Pickthall: rose—

Malcolm Bruce: The Tories withdrew bus services under bus regulation, accelerated post office closures and withdrew health services into the city. That is the catalogue of disaster in 18 years of Tory government, and they have the cheek to come here with a bleeding-heart resolution expressing their concerns about the rural community that they destroyed.

David Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have added to that sorry catalogue of evidence the fact that, of the massed ranks of the 166 Members in the parliamentary Conservative party, only six are in the Chamber for their debate. Fewer than 4 per cent. of their number are here, so 96 per cent. of the parliamentary Tory party should be ashamed of themselves.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes his point perfectly fairly. The point I make, however, is not that the Conservatives have been out of power for five years and can now make a fresh start, but that most of the damage that has been inflicted on the rural economy was inflicted by the failures, the mismanagement and misbegotten policies of the Conservative Government. It is astonishing that they should now wish to come along as knights in shining armour in a bid to say that they are the saviours of the rural community.

Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman paints an interesting picture, but how does it correspond with what has happened under the Ministry for Environment and Rural Development in Scotland? Under its Liberal Democrat management, average farm incomes have declined to a greater degree in Scotland than in England and Wales. In fact, ministerial time has been taken up with a Bill to ban fur farming when there are no fur farms in Scotland.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman, who as the only Conservative MP in Scotland is himself an endangered species, should know that the Minister in Scotland has been acknowledged as standing up for rural communities and Scottish farmers, with whom he has a good relationship. In particular, he handled the foot and mouth crisis with considerable acuity and distinction, and rather more effectively than the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I have a great deal of confidence in him. I am not alone in that. I have heard the National Farmers Union and other environment agencies in Scotland sing his praises in meetings because of his competence and commitment to fighting for the rural community.
	On farm incomes, I repeat that the exchange rate is the biggest single factor in the decline in farm incomes in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's party will not address that and it refused to provide the agrimonetary compensation to protect farm incomes. The Conservatives could have done that and, because they did not, are more responsible for the drop in farm incomes than even the Labour party.

Simon Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of how much of the farming industry has reached this point, but he cannot wash his hands of his party's responsibility in Wales and Scotland, where it has been part of a coalition and where, as it happens, it is responsible for agriculture in both countries. Does not he think it uniquely ironic that his motion states
	Xthat British agriculture"—
	which I assume includes Wales and Scotland—
	Xis in the throes of its worst recession since the 1930s"?
	What role has his party played in that?

Malcolm Bruce: I have just explained that the prime reason for the recession in agriculture is the exchange rate. That is the biggest single factor. The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly do not have control of the exchange rate. The Westminster Parliament and the Whitehall Government do, but they will not make a decision that will resolve the problem because the Prime Minister is too scared to face up to it.
	The Conservatives have a brass neck and a cheek to come up with the motion, which sticks in the throat. Most people in beef-producing rural areas such as mine still have fixed in their minds the picture of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) feeding his daughter hamburgers while he assured us that there was no problem with British beef—when, in fact, there was a catastrophic problem with it. They will not forget what the Tories did to our beef industry.
	The Minister made a long speech, but he gave no clear idea of the results delivered by a Labour Government to turn the situation around. Labour continued to run down the number of scientific officers and vets when it came to power. That is only now being reversed, but the number has not climbed back to where it needs to be. The Government mismanaged the foot and mouth epidemic and refused to hold a public health inquiry. All they did was introduce draconian measures in the Animal Health Bill, which they tried to force it through Parliament. The other place rightly delayed it because the measures were unjustified, unnecessary and, in many cases, vindictive, and they did nothing to secure co-operation between Government and farmers to deal with the problem of epidemics.
	The Secretary of State is not here. I am not complaining; I merely point it out. I criticise her most specifically on this matter. She loses few opportunities to talk about reform of the common agricultural policy, but she does so in a way that shows a complete lack of consideration of the dire state of farm incomes. We all want a reform that ensures that the continual subsidisation of production is replaced by more beneficent measures. However, the Secretary of State seems to imply—the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been accused of this—that farmers are subsidy junkies. In reality, farmers are looking for an income that bears a correlation to their costs of production.
	Most farmers I talk to would be happy to live in an environment without subsidies if the price paid at the farm gate related to their costs of production. There is no correlation at the moment, and it is one reason why all major agricultural systems in the world have some form of subsidy. When the Secretary of State talks about reform, she often does not realise how concerned farmers are that all she wants to do is to cut the subsidies that they still have, in spite of the fact that their average income has dropped to about #7,000 a year. That is not a viable proposition.
	I repeat that the Government have underestimated the scale of the exchange rate's impact on farm incomes and business. They have not given the full agrimonetary compensation that was available, and they have continued to dither about what we should do about the exchange rate. This party has been clear in its views, and certainly an early decision to join the euro, subject to a referendum for the British people, would do more than any other measure to restore the incomes of the farming community. In any case, whether one is for or against the euro, what is needed in every sector of the economy is a decision, rather than the Prime Minister leaving the British economy to dither and struggle year after year because he does not have the confidence or leadership to face up to the issue.
	As I have mentioned, I represent a mixed agricultural community, which apart from being a prime quality beef-producing area is also a pig area, a sheep area and an arable area. However, beef has been the flagship of the north-east of Scotland, and we are still suffering under export regulations negotiated by the Government to secure the chimera of the legal lifting of the ban, whereas in reality we all know that it is pretty impossible to sell British beef abroad because we are over-regulated. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary is muttering. I say to him that companies and producers that had a large export market for prime Scotch beef are unable even to consider rebuilding it, because the regulations that we have imposed on ourselves to secure the lifting of the ban make it impossible, on grounds of practicality and cost, to deliver a product at the quality and price necessary to build up such a market.
	The serious point that I make to Ministers is that with BSE incidence rising in France and Ireland, although not yet to UK levels, which are falling, surely there will come a time in the not-too-distant future when an EU-wide regime will apply fairly and evenly across the whole market and a genuine single market will be re-established for beef and beef exports. An Italian beef importer, rejoicing in the name of Mrs. Francesca Piccolini, was a major importer of quality Scotch beef before the ban was imposed and says that she has scoured the world to look for a replacement product of comparable quality and has been unable to find anything as good. Yet she still cannot get back into the market because she cannot get quality at a realistic price. The Government should address that issue in the hope that, in two or three years, we can once more have a single market in beef and other meat products.
	In the long speech by the Minister for Rural Affairs there were many references to initiatives, targets and White Papers, many promises and many indications of additional money here and there, but ultimately the Government will be judged on delivery. Right now, the rural economy does not see that delivery. People will judge the Government by the outcomes, and although I made it clear that the root of the problem was 18 years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, the Government have certainly not rebuilt confidence or solved the problems faced by rural areas. That is why, in spite of the lateness of the hour and the shortness of the debate, the fundamental question for the political parties is: who has the necessary vision to address the issues facing rural communities?

Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of that rebuilding is very difficult because of the factors to which he adverted? Among other things, selling off care homes and privatising British Telecom, which made broadband provision much more difficult, have made it more difficult for us to climb out of the mess that we were left than if we had been given a reasonable shot.

Malcolm Bruce: That is a perfectly fair point; I will not take issue with it. I am saying, however, that excuses will not ultimately impress the voters. They want results; we have to deliver results. We as a party have sought to address some of the issues and to start to develop policies that we believe will begin to rebuild confidence in the economy. We have a vision of a rural economy that promotes harmony with the environment but recognises the varying and important contribution that the countryside makes to the whole economy; and, indeed, which ends the urban-rural divide, which is not constructive. We have a number of measures that would go some way towards achieving that.
	I will not labour the point other than to say that it remains our view that joining the euro as soon as is practicable and subject to a referendum would help to secure a competitive market in the CAP. As long as we remain outside the euro, we shall be increasingly disadvantaged. That is an indisputable fact for agriculture whatever the relevance of the euro to other sectors of the economy. We happen to believe that the euro would benefit the whole economy.
	We recognise that we need to diversify the strength of the rural economy—the income not only of agriculture but of other activities. We want to encourage and promote co-operatives, as the Government have said they recognise. We want to promote marketing initiatives that will help to secure diversification, adding value to and diversifying farm produce, boosting tourism and attracting new businesses. That requires practical measures of support—certainly in finding new investment.

David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Bruce: No, I am anxious that others should be able to make some contribution to the debate.
	One area worth exploring is whether rural communities can secure a direct stake in the resources that they provide for the whole community. I have in mind things such as the water supply, which at the moment is owned by privatised water companies that have their own shareholders and do not cut the community into the benefits. The Minister for Rural Affairs knows perfectly well that that is an issue of sharp political focus in Wales, especially north Wales, dating back 50 years or more. My argument is not that the residents of Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester should not benefit from Welsh water, but that the Welsh people should receive some benefit in direct revenue accruing from that. We should consider community ownership or a community share, certainly for new developments. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, now Lord Ashdown, long argued that a mutual stake in such services had much to commend it.
	We have the proposed expansion of renewable energy sources, such as wind farms and others. I recently witnessed with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and the all-party parliamentary group on renewable and sustainable energy the encouragement of the German authorities in order to ensure that communities secured an ownership in wind turbines. That had two benefits. First, it meant that the community could see an income flow rather than just an outside business developing and exploiting their resource. Secondly, with indicative planning, it helped to remove people's fear that wind turbines would be spread all over the landscape without any regard to bird migration, scenic beauty, scientific interest or, indeed, over-development. If rural communities are to be exploited in order to provide resources for the wider community, I strongly commend to the Government a sensitive planning regime and the opportunity for revenue to accrue directly to the community. I want the Government to consider whether there are ways of exploring that.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made mention of broadband, as did the Minister. Whenever the issue is raised with the Government, the standard ministerial reply is that they have had discussions with BT. With the greatest respect, I must tell the Minister that people are looking for a little more than that. They want some commitment to ensure that broadband will be available.
	The problem is potentially rather more severe than the hon. Member for Aylesbury set out. Lack of broadband access will not only stifle the development or attraction of new businesses in rural areas but threaten the continuing survival of those already located there. If they cannot access broadband, many will have to move to a place where they can. I suggest that the matter requires more than Ministers having conversations with BT. There should be a Government policy to try to ensure the drawing down of broadband to rural communities and the delivery of the service in the long run.
	Rural proofing has been mentioned as something that the Government talk about, but to be honest it does not test very well. Indeed, the Countryside Agency is not that impressed. There are a number of problems. The costs of providing services in rural areas tend to be higher and the funding of local authorities and other public agencies does not fully take account of that.
	A specific issue that has had an impact in my constituency is small rural schools. They are an important part of the fabric of the rural community, but if the rebuilding or modernisation of those schools is a serious issue and the Government's response is, in essence, that the only way to fund the work is through PFI, there is a problem. To be frank, rural schools are of no interest to private developers, so PFI could lead to the forced closure of rural schools, to be replaced by larger schools covering a wider area.

Pete Wishart: The Liberal Democrats are in government in Scotland.

Malcolm Bruce: It is not happening in Scotland—well, it is in some parts of Scotland, but not where Liberal Democrats are in charge, because we consult local people and we have clearly stated that we will not close schools against the wishes of the local people. The one school in my constituency that has closed since Labour came to power, a school in the Moray council area, was closed by a Labour chairman of education and the closure was sanctioned by a Labour Minister, against the expressed wishes of the local community.

Peter Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Bruce: No.
	Further issues relating to services in rural areas include the provision of further education, training within rural communities, and outreach clinics. As for the Post Office, it is somewhat ironic that the Government decided to force the transfer of benefit payments from post offices to banks and credit transfers to cut the costs of the former Department of Social Security, now the Department for Work and Pensions, but now have to find an almost exactly similar sum to support post office services. It makes one wonder whether they would have done better to leave well enough alone. Finally, advice centres in rural areas are difficult to fund and often face closure, leaving people having to travel to advice centres in towns up to 50 miles away.
	Another important and much debated issue is that of affordable housing in rural communities. Local authorities and housing associations clearly need freedom to invest in housing, and planning guidelines must be revised. In addition, I suggest ending the second home council tax rebate and using the revenue to allow local authorities and others to fund new housing development to meet the requirement for affordable housing. It is interesting that the Tories are so keen to sell off the remaining housing association stock at a discount: it is Mickey Mouse economics to believe that one can continue to sell at a discount and the money will not run out. I wonder whether the Conservatives would be so enthusiastic if the same rule applied to privately rented accommodation in rural areas. If such properties were sold off at a discount to tenants, it would make a huge contribution to the welfare of rural communities. I suspect that such a policy would not be greeted with warm support from the Conservatives, but I think it a better policy than theirs.
	As I am happy to acknowledge, there is strong political competition for rural votes. Many constituencies in rural areas are marginal, with some having only recently become so. Some Labour Members have been astonished to find themselves representing rural constituencies, and on occasion their astonishment shows. A lot of Conservatives are no longer in Parliament because they no longer represent rural areas, whereas there is a swelling rank of Liberal Democrats who have built up their strength: more than half our constituencies are rural. Major factors in our success have been the discredited policies of the Tory Government and rural people's lack of conviction about Labour's competence and understanding of rural issues.
	I suggest that the complexion of the House of Commons after the next general election will to a substantial extent be determined by how the parties tackle rural issues. We Liberal Democrats are determined to be out in front in that respect—indeed, we already are. At our party conference in Brighton, we adopted as a blueprint for policy development our radical XRural Futures" paper, which bears reading.
	While the Tories, by their own admission, have no policies, and Labour continues to send a discordant message, we, the Liberal Democrats, are determined to establish our party as the natural party of the countryside.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Ian Cawsey.

Colin Pickthall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether there is anything that Mr. Speaker's good offices could do to prevent a disgraceful situation whereby the amount of time available to Back-Bench Members is likely to be reduced to about 20 minutes if we are lucky?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. The time given to Front-Bench speeches is entirely a matter for Front Bench speakers.

Ian Cawsey: Having listened to that exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall either reduce the number of points that I make or speak faster—in reality, a bit of both.
	I intend to speak about the rural economy and public services in rural areas. Many measures are used to establish how well an economy is going and to prove a point one way or the other. In my judgment, one of the best measures has always been that of how many people are in work. If the economy is going well, people have jobs. When it is not, unfortunately people do not have jobs. I represent one of the largest rural constituencies in England. Since Labour came to power, we have enjoyed a 41 per cent. fall in unemployment. That has taken the unemployment level down to 3 per cent. We are very pleased about that, of course.
	The Opposition, in moving the motion, are commenting on the state of the rural economy. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), unemployment has fallen by 49 per cent. since Labour came to power. In the constituency of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), it has fallen by 32 per cent. In the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), it has fallen by 42 per cent. It has fallen by 29 per cent. in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and by 43 per cent. in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean). In the constituency of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) it has fallen by 29 per cent. Whatever problems there are—and no one could deny that there are problems—things have become better since Labour came to power.
	The motion refers to difficulties in agriculture that are real and ongoing. The hon. Member for Aylesbury fairly said in his opening remarks that they cannot all be put at the feet of the present or any other Government. But rural economies, like all economies, are dynamic. They must adapt and change to respond to different circumstances. I am pleased that in my constituency many of those involved in agriculture have diversified, modernised and considered other ways to run a business in their locality, and have since been successful.
	Reference has been made to the Curry report, XThe Future of Farming", which, broadly speaking, has received a good welcome throughout the House. There has been some talk about the funding that will come on board. However, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that many funding streams are already available for those in the rural sector. Only the other month, I was at Moore's farm, one of the largest farms in the south part of the Isle of Axholme in my constituency, opening its new plant and modernised equipment, which had in part been paid for through grant aid given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know that that support was well received.
	Councils can make a difference through their support. North Lincolnshire council, which serves the south part of my constituency, was successful in obtaining single regeneration budget funding—under SRB6. As a suggestion, which came in part from the local National Farmers Union, the council decided to put some of that money into the rural area represented by it to help people in agriculture who needed to diversify into other parts of business. That, plus the rate relief on rural businesses that the Government introduced, has made a real difference.
	I make that point for two reasons. First, it is a success story in a rural area. Secondly, the same NFU made the same offer to the neighbouring council, which also had SRB money. That is a Tory council, North Lincolnshire being Labour. The Tory council refused the offer. Yet the Tories talk about problems in the rural economy. The money was available, the possibility was there, and the NFU was making the offer, but West Lindsey council said no. I say that because the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made a short intervention earlier. He is no longer in his place, but I know that he will welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 35 per cent. in his constituency since Labour came to power.
	It was helpful for many rural areas when the Government came to reassess the regional map to ascertain where we could tap into European funding. We broke down the areas that could be eligible. I represent Goole, which is not a rural area, but which has great deprivation problems. It could never get on to the map because it was surrounded by affluence. However, breaking down areas into council ward level allowed that to happen for the first time for Goole, and the marshlands, which are all the villages round it. They became eligible for assisted aid from Europe, which was welcome.
	Mention has been made of regional development agencies. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to the metropolitan areas of Yorkshire and Humberside. He, too, has left the Chamber. No doubt he will welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 49 per cent. since Labour came to power.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that North Yorkshire was the only metropolitan area in Yorkshire and Humberside. I do not think that people in the East Riding of Yorkshire consider themselves metropolitan at all but they have managed to get significant funding through the regional development agency. They have also managed, through a local inquiry, to ensure that 200 acres of former agricultural land has been converted for industrial use to exploit the natural advantages of the area. The American company, Guardian, is building a large glass factory there that will employ hundreds of people, so I look forward to the 3 per cent. unemployment rate in my constituency falling still further. That will be an achievement due in part to what the Government have done.
	Another successful scheme is the market towns initiative in Brigg. I am pleased that the Countryside Agency chose Brigg marketplace to advertise the market towns initiative in one of the excellent little newspapers that it sends us all from time to time. The picture showed my constituency office but the article did not state where it was, so I was a little disappointed at that, but in general terms it was nice to see Brigg being advertised in that way.

Matthew Green: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government often promote the market towns initiative as providing #1 million per market town? In reality, the maximum is #300,000, and it is dependent on an awful lot of matched funding coming in from various sources. A couple of towns in my constituency have been granted market town initiative status, and I am glad of that, but the promotion gave the impression that they would get #1 million of public money. The reality is far from that.

Ian Cawsey: I am grateful for that intervention. I never thought that my town would get #1 million, and I have never heard that before. If there is such a misapprehension, I am sure that the Minister would want to pick it up. I stress that the initiative in my constituency was never advertised as providing #1 million for the town. Nevertheless, it was good news. There is much to be done in the rural economy, but people sometimes try to pretend that it is all wrong, when there are good things as well.
	I shall comment briefly on public services. I served as a county councillor for seven years and as leader of North Lincolnshire council for two years before coming to the House. There has always been the challenge of delivering public services in sparsely populated areas—for example, small schools service delivery. One of the things that we considered and eventually introduced in North Lincolnshire was the concept of local links out in villages—the idea that not just council services, but services provided by the jobcentre, colleges and other organisations can be based in one building, with a range of such bases across the villages, so that instead of always having to go to urban centres for help and support, people could get that out in the countryside. Those initiatives are now commonplace across our area and have proved to be enormously popular and successful.
	North Lincolnshire council was a Labour council, and still is. It obviously was while I was leader. At the time when we proposed the local links scheme, the Conservatives on the council voted against it. They opposed it. They voted to keep all the council services in Scunthorpe, the major town of the area, and did not want anything to do with local links at all. We must ask ourselves who is talking about getting services into the countryside—the Labour party or the Conservative party?
	On rural schools, so many classrooms have been built in my constituency since 1997 that I could bore the House endlessly with them. Let me tell the House about Alkborough, a lovely village. When we came to power, the school in Alkborough still had an outside toilet. Not only did we get rid of that very quickly, but we built two new classrooms in order to meet the class size pledge. When I went to the opening of those, there was a new foundation stone showing the year 2000, next to the one for the original building, which was from 1870-something. The head teacher at the time, Austin Holden, said, XWe have these two foundation stones with 130 years between them, and no Government spent any money between those two dates, until this Government came along."

Jim Knight: Are any of my hon. Friend's schools getting new school halls? In my constituency just a year ago, three schools approached me, and now all three are on their way to getting new halls in the near future.

Ian Cawsey: I am sure that that is the case. I hope to have a new school at Rawcliffe and another at South Ferriby.
	There is much more that I could say about public services, but I am aware of the time and I know that others want to come in, so I shall give the final word in my little contribution to a local farmer, the chairman of one of the branches of my National Farmers Union. We were out together the other night in a joint enterprise to keep the British brewing industry going, and he said to me, XYou know, Ian, I am not really all that bothered about politics". All hon. Members know that that is the lead-in to a constituent saying that he does not support them. He said, XI am not really bothered about politics, but when I was old enough to vote, I mentioned it to my granddad, who said, 'You are a farmer, son, so what you do is vote Conservative and pray that the Labour party wins.'"
	Having watched the performance in the Chamber tonight, all the prayers and hopes must go to the Conservative party, because on this performance, the Conservatives do not have a prayer.

Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), especially as he has enlightened me somewhat about the market towns initiative. Hexham was a Labour target seat and the Labour party announced before the election that we would have #1 million as part of the initiative. On making inquiries, just as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) did, we discovered that the amount put in was significantly less than #1 million. None the less, for target seats the stated amount was #1 million, and I still have the press release in my files to prove it.
	It is right and proper for me to declare an interest as a consultant to the Countryside Alliance. I am proud to be a consultant to that organisation, which brought 407,791 people into London in the biggest demonstration ever seen in this city. Let me tell the Minister for Rural Affairs that there was certainly no muddle at the heart of the march. Presumably, he did not march, but I and many other colleagues did so and I can say that there was no such muddle. The muddle lies at the heart of DEFRA. It is fascinating that the Minister should describe his Ministry as one of focus and drive when I would regard it as wonderful if I could obtain answers to letters that I sent to Ministers many months ago. Let us forget the focus and drive, and have some answers to letters dealing with the problems that farmers have raised with me and other colleagues. The Ministry has a vastly long way to go before it can be called a Ministry of focus and drive.
	The Minister's muddle was shown by the way in which he dealt with the role of the farming economy in the countryside. There is a continual misunderstanding about the fact that only half a million people are directly employed in agriculture and that its importance is small in terms of GDP. To see how the farming industry underpins the rural economy, however, we must consider what happened when foot and mouth struck in my constituency and Northumberland as a whole, in Cumbria and Devon and also in the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). When foot and mouth struck, the whole rural economy came to a standstill, but it was not the precautions that brought other businesses either near or completely to bankruptcy. When the countryside is closed, the tourism industry and other businesses suffer hugely. The strength and importance of the farming economy in the countryside is underlined by those dreadful tragedies.
	The Minister talked about farming incomes falling under the Conservatives, but he was completely wrong. In 1995, the income of British agriculture was #6 billion, but in 2000, the last year for which I have figures, it fell to #1.8 billion. That is a huge fall during the life of this Government.
	Farm incomes in my constituency, which contains many upland farms, are under #5,000 a year. They are even lower in Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats are in coalition government, and I think in Wales, where there is also such coalition. The subsidy provided to an upland farmer in Cumberland will now be about #30,000 a year. The bleak logic is that it would be better for the taxpayer and possibly the farmer to strike a deal so the stock is slaughtered and they take half the subsidy each. They would be better off, but the uplands would suffer from not being farmed.
	In a constructive spirit, I ask the Minister to consider a particular issue concerning farming and the rural economy: the confusion that now exists because of the plethora of different organisations that are involved in the countryside. There are pockets of money, but such organisations have different and often conflicting requirements. The plethora of organisations drives farmers to confusion, especially in upland locations that are sensitive environmental areas. That is incredibly confusing on top of all the regulations and other burdens that the Government have imposed on the farming community.
	In the short time that remains, I want to consider the reform of the common agricultural policy. The Government have let farming down on that. I appreciate that Ministers are busy, but the reform is important. Ministers are happy to shuttle around the capitals of Europe to pursue matters that are interesting or important to the Government, but they make little effort to set about meaningful reform of the disastrous CAP.

Jim Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that when the Conservative party was in power, nobody in Europe listened to it? It was ignored on BSE, yet when the Labour Government held the European presidency, the Commission adopted our policy on CAP reform. We are making progress. I admit that it is slow, but at least our voice is heard in Europe, unlike that of the Conservative party.

Peter Atkinson: A party can only be judged on results. The Government's results on reforming the CAP have so far been lamentable. Most of the reforms agreed in the medium-term review are potentially damaging to, for example, livestock farming. Proper reform, which Sir Donald Curry specified, is right. I hoped that the Government would pursue the recommendation of Sir Donald, who is a constituent of mine. However, they did not do that with any force.
	Since the Government have been in power, they have gone to Brussels, banged the table and returned with less than they had. Every time they go to Brussels, they return with a disadvantage to British farming. Only yesterday, the Meat and Livestock Commission produced a report showing that the agreed proposals in the medium-term review of the CAP would mean a reduction of 17 million in this country's sheep flock and substantial reductions in our beef herd. That has been agreed.
	It is no good Ministers coming to the House and claiming that they are fighting and batting for the British farmer: the British farmer simply does not believe it. A quick resolution of the CAP's future is vital. Every day, farmers must make decisions in a capital-intensive business about whether to buy more land or more machinery—whether to expand to survive or diversify. Yet their future remains unknown.
	Will young men and women who want to go into farming do so if they do not know where their future lies? The Government must understand that farming is the bedrock of the rural economy and rural society. If farming does not emerge from the current depression, the future for the rural areas of this country is grim.

Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, and I thank Conservative Front-Bench Members for giving us such a useful platform.
	Contrary to popular opinion, I represent a constituency that is partly urban and partly rural. I live in a small village outside the town and I love country sports, especially fishing and shooting. I was pleased to be recently appointed adviser to the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Rural Affairs on fishing and shooting. I shall speak later about the tremendous contribution of those important sports to the rural economy. However, another subject, to which other hon. Members have referred, needs further examination: the spurious town and country divide.
	Many of the activities and tactics of the Countryside Alliance are objectionable, not least the lies and smears that it spreads about the Labour party's intentions for fishing and shooting and the failure of its stewards at the latest march and that held a few years ago to prevent the British National party from distributing racist, fascist and prejudiced literature. Not a single Conservative Member or Countryside Alliance steward prevented the attendance of the British National party at the so-called march for the countryside.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter: I will not give way. I have only three or four minutes to speak.
	Most objectionable of all is the entirely false premise that we have some kind of apartheid Britain: one country that is urban, another that is rural. MORI recently polled a substantial sample of people, both from urban and rural environments. What were the top six issues in rural Britain? No. 1 was transport—well, are we surprised at that? No. 2 was protection of the environment. No. 3 was conservation of wildlife. No. 4 was the need to improve our infrastructure and our road system. No. 5 was crime. No. 6 was unemployment. The fact remains that the issues that affect rural Britain affect this country as a whole, and the spurious divide between town and country has to be challenged.
	A tremendous contribution has been made by shooting not only to the rural economy but to the country as a whole. I would like to pay tribute to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has certainly helped me and was kind enough to invite my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and me to address a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference in Blackpool. Incidentally, that conference was not disrupted by the provisional wing of the Countryside Alliance, due to the arrest of Janet George and other prominent Countryside Alliance activists by the Lancashire constabulary, to whom we should pay tribute for upholding law and order in Blackpool and elsewhere. Sadly, I believe that those people have now been released.
	In the United Kingdom, 26,300 full-time jobs are directly dependent on shooting. Another 13,450 are indirectly dependent on it. That is many more than the 700 jobs that relate directly to hunting, as identified in the Burns report, and very different from the 60,000 jobs that were supposed to be under threat if hunting were banned. Those were more lies and smears put about by the Countryside Alliance.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Martin Salter: No, I will not.
	I also want to pay tribute to the shooters' acknowledgment of the contribution that the Labour party has already made to enhancing and developing their sport. I quote from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation's document:
	XBASC warmly welcomes the . . . commitment made by the Labour party in its General Election Manifesto 2001, which states an unequivocal support for the sport of shooting".
	I thank the association for that truthful acknowledgement of my party's true intentions when it comes to shooting.
	On angling, nothing gave me greater pleasure than to read last week in the angling press the whines and whinges of the foxhunters saying that there were not enough anglers on the Countryside Alliance march. Too right, there were not enough anglers! If every angler I know, having caught a prize specimen fish, had to throw it to a pack of hounds to have it ripped to pieces, and smear its blood on their forehead in the barbaric way in which foxhunters used to do, there is no way that they would ever fish again. Three million anglers in this country will not be conned, either by the Tory party or by the Countryside Alliance.
	In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: XMore! More!"] You can have 20 more minutes of this! In conclusion, we are facing the threat of global terrorism. We live in a world that is interdependent. We are one people, one nation, one world. The idea that the pathetic divisions that the Conservative party and their allies in the Countryside Alliance—let us never forget that 82 per cent. of those on the march were going to vote Conservative—are trying to portray are entirely false. Never mind town and country—whatever happened to one-nation Conservatism?

John Hayes: I certainly give the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) full marks for volume, although he perhaps ought to be reminded that the president of the Countryside Alliance is a Labour peer and its chief executive is a member of the Labour party. I therefore regard his attacks on that organisation as, at best, intemperate.
	The countryside is in crisis. The desperate plight of the countryside is both tangible and deeply felt. On 22 September, people from every part of the country descended on the streets of London. The crowd was good-natured, but as their numbers multiplied it became apparent that something extraordinary was taking place: the biggest demonstration in Britain's post-war history. Perhaps more extraordinary still was the reason for this gathering of 400,000 people. It was not for some fashionable, liberal cause, but rather a cry from the heart for this nation's greatest treasure: the countryside.
	Some people have tried to dismiss that event as an aberration. I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs is an honourable and generous man. I had hoped that he would come to the House today and refute his remark that the march was an incoherent muddle, but he did not do so. I am disappointed, because I thought better of him. However, perhaps he will dissociate himself from the following statement:
	XIn broad terms the countryside is prosperous, contented and reasonably well-served."
	That was the Prime Minister's analysis in 2000. If he said that today he surely would be ashamed of himself. If he went to the countryside and said it, he would not receive a happy reception.
	The countryside is in crisis at every level: economic, environmental and social. I make no apologies for saying that agriculture is at the centre of that crisis. Farm incomes have plummeted. Incomes are at their lowest level since the 1930s. To put it another way, incomes are just 61 per cent. of their 1995 levels. How does that compare with the other countries of Europe? In the Netherlands the figure is 84 per cent., and it is more than 100 per cent. in 10 EU countries.
	The crisis in Britain's countryside cannot be excused as part of some global phenomenon. Farm gate prices prove the point. We have the lowest prices for eggs in the EU bar Belgium, and the lowest prices for milk, butter and pig meat bar none. At the same time, input costs are rising. Figures from the House of Commons Library suggest that in the United Kingdom they are rising by about 0.6 per cent. a year, whereas in the rest of Europe they are falling by about 1.2 per cent.
	That is a disaster for the rural economy, and it affects not just farmers. The point that many Labour Members do not seem to grasp and are not prepared to accept, although many of them take these issues seriously and have genuine concerns about the countryside, is that when farming suffers, the whole rural economy suffers. There is a knock-on effect on rural businesses—rural suppliers and retail businesses. Recently, I was in the small town of Holbeach in my constituency where a clothes retailer told me that his business had plummeted since the agricultural recession. That is true of many retail businesses throughout the countryside.
	The countryside is also under threat from over-development. Bulldozers have been used to destroy thousands of acres of rural Britain, with the promise of much more destruction to come. Once that has gone it will never be replaced. Unlike cities, the countryside cannot be rebuilt. If farmers are driven off the land, there will be no one to look after it.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I cannot give way, because time is short, and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) cut into the Minister's time. If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) writes to me, I will be more than happy to give him an appropriate reply or a short lecture.
	The point about the countryside that we enjoy is that it is an environment manufactured by farmers over centuries and maintained by farmers. Just as the landscape has suffered, so have its people. Public services in rural areas have declined. I ask the Minister whether there are more post offices in rural areas now than there were in 1997, or fewer. Are there more local village shops, or fewer? Are there fewer pubs or more pubs? Are there fewer resources and services in rural communities than there were in 1997? The answer is unequivocal. All those trades and services are in decline, and that is contributing to low morale, to the feelings of despondency and neglect and to the belief among people in the countryside that the Government do not care for them.
	The local government settlement that we discussed yesterday has exacerbated that problem. Time and again we have said that, when the Government deal with public services, they should take account of the particular problems of sparsity, rurality and remoteness, but they have refused to listen. I do not take anything away from the concerns of people in inner cities and the declining suburbs, but only rural Britain perceives a threat to its very existence.
	At the heart of the problem is agriculture. While it is important to emphasise the need for diversification and the stimulation of other employment in rural areas, agriculture is at the core of the economic, environmental and social character of the countryside.
	There are no simple solutions to these problems, but I believe that there are two competing visions for our countryside.
	There are those who place undue emphasis on the interdependence of town and country, and to some extent they are of course interdependent, but that must not be used to disguise the particular needs—the particular and proper demands—of rural areas.
	There are those who emphasise the use of the countryside as a resource for the population as a whole, but the countryside is not an abstraction; it is composed of real communities. No one would suggest that a policy for any large urban community should be primarily in the interests of the people who reside elsewhere.
	There are those who play down the importance of agriculture to the countryside, while simultaneously telling us to reduce our dependence on agriculture. Conservatives believe that farming is the foundation of a sustainable rural economy, and there can be no sustainable countryside without viable agriculture.
	There are those who misrepresent the problems of social exclusion in the countryside as problems caused by the countryside. Conservatives believe that the hidden poverty in the countryside must be addressed, and that rural deprivation is in part the result of unfair funding arrangements.
	Finally, there are those who stifle the debate on rural policy by accusing dissenters of setting town against country. We heard that tonight from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). Conservatives recognise that in some respects town and country have different needs, which should not be swept under the carpet; but above all we believe that town and country are united in wanting the countryside to be delivered from those who seek to ruin it.
	Perhaps the Minister will answer some specific questions. We have heard this evening about the need for broadband to be made more widely available, to allow economic diversity. We have heard about the inflexibility of the 20-day rule, and about its more flexible application in Scotland. That was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). We have heard about the need to support diversification within agriculture, allowing the dairy industry, for example, to become involved in processing by giving it tax breaks and other advantages.
	Let me finally say this:
	Xthe Countryside Alliance did what the Chartists, the Hunger Marchers and CND had all failed to do. The turnout"—
	for the countryside march, that is—
	Xwas . . . exceptional . . . their peaceful presence in such numbers on the streets entitles the protesters to respect, both for their cause and for their engagement."
	Those are not my words, but those of a The Guardian editorial.
	It was G.K. Chesterton who wrote
	Xwe are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet."
	He wrote
	XSmile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget."
	In 1998, a quarter of a million people marched for the countryside and said XListen to us", but this Government were unmoved. Last month they returned in greater numbers. The people have spoken loudly and clearly; this time, surely, the Government must listen and not forget.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) to the Dispatch Box, where he is appearing for the first time with his new Front-Bench team. I am not sure that his grasp of the range of countryside issues has developed yet, but no doubt it will do so in due course.
	I think it only courteous to respond to some of what has been said in the time remaining to me. The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made some very fair points about regulations on beef exports. We are trying to deal with that. The regulations are changing, which we believe will encourage more people to come into the market.
	The Government have committed #30 million to broadband roll-out. We have also supported local initiatives such as XAct Now" in Cornwall, which is providing broadband access in rural areas. We currently have 67 per cent. access, which is one of the highest rates in the G7 countries.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) was right to point out that unemployment has fallen dramatically in rural areas. I would have thought that Opposition Front Benchers would congratulate the Government on the huge falls in unemployment in their constituencies under our policies, but surprisingly we heard not a word about that from them.
	I strongly disagree with what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said about the Secretary of State. This country now has a great deal of support in Europe—which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, contrasts with the situation under the last Government, when we were completely isolated, our opinions counted for nothing, and we had no influence over anything. Now, we have support from member states who back the kind of proposals that are in the mid-term review. The Commission's proposals have been very much influenced by the arguments from this country. We are very much at the heart of the European Union, and are driving forward the changes. There has been no agreement on the mid-term review as yet, so I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Meat and Livestock Commission relate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made an excellent point about those who wish to exploit a mythical divide between urban and rural areas. Most people in urban or rural areas have the same concerns and worries. We recognise those concerns and we do not seek to make false distinctions. My hon. Friend was right also to mention the importance of shooting and fishing and the fact that they are separate issues. He was right also that many who support shooting and angling do not support foxhunting. The distinctions ought to be made.
	The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that there were serious problems in agriculture, and no one would dispute that. The hon. Member for Gordon was fair to point out that those problems did not begin with the election of this Government. The problems are deep-seated, which is precisely why the Government set up the Food and Farming Commission to address them. The commission has received #500 million and the Government have provided #1.6 billion through the England rural development programme. The money has led to the reinstatement of the sort of schemes that every Member has been talking about today, including the need to reconnect farmers with the marketplace and the need to support marketing and integration. The previous Government axed marketing and processing grants; so much for their concern about agriculture and about meeting those needs. We have reinstated those grants in relation to the rural development fund. One of the problems that we face is that our share of the European rural development fund is a pathetic 3.5 per cent. [Hon. Members: XWhose fault is that?"] I will tell hon. Members; the amount is based on the historical record over the last 18 years of what was spent in rural areas. I thank hon. Members for the invitation to make that point. That was useful.
	For all the rhetoric that we have heard tonight, the Conservatives, when they were in power, could have spent more in rural areas and on a rural strategy but nothing was done. We have been paying the price since. There has been selective quoting from rural advocates, as rural agencies have highlighted important successes with rural proofing, which was introduced by the Government.
	Conservative policies for the countryside were summed up in the 25 new policies and initiatives about which we heard at Bournemouth. It is a pity that we did not play XName that Policy" to see who could recite them all. In a desperate bid to find new policies, someone was sent into the depths of Central Office to a filing cabinet with a skull and cross bones and a sign saying XDanger: do not open". He pulled out a drawer and, after removing Edwina's diaries, found a file marked XRejected mad policies". The policies date back to the 1980s, and include the selling of housing association houses in rural areas. How will that help rural housing need and rural communities? How will charities, many of which finance rural housing associations, feel about the fact that the Conservatives are pledged to sell off those homes, many of which were built with donations from local landowners who donated land and money and put the houses into trust for the local communities to benefit? They will be sold off at a discount—

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question,That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 185.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House acknowledges the millions of British people dependent on the rural economy; welcomes the Government's support for the farming and food industry in meeting the enormous challenges of change; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper; applauds the Government's wider record on public service delivery in rural areas; welcomes the #239 million allocated over three years to 2003–04 for new and improved rural transport services; further welcomes schemes in place to provide affordable housing in rural areas, including the Rural Exception and the doubling of the Housing Corporation's Rural Target; commends the efforts to retain the rural post office network and expand services; further applauds the Government's commitment to invest more than #500 million extra over three years in sustainable food and farming, including #200 million in 2005–06 to implement the core recommendations of the Curry Commission; acknowledges the establishment for the first time of a rural PSA target for increased productivity and improved access to vital public services for all rural people; and calls upon the Government to continue pursuing a strategy based on long term policies to regenerate British agriculture, improve rural services and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.

Public accounts

Ordered,
	That Mr. Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Angela Eagle be added.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Public Administration

Ordered,
	That Mr Anthony D. Wright be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr Kelvin Hopkins be added.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Petitions

Air Ambulance Services

Mark Simmonds: This petition from the residents of the Boston and Skegness constituency declares that the
	Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance provides a vital community service; and that an annual budget of #1 million is needed to keep its helicopters flying.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to express his support for the work of the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance and to take the appropriate action to ensure the continued operation of this vital service.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Cliffe Airport

Bob Spink: The Government's airport review sets out one option for a new hub airport at Cliffe, just 2,000 yards from my constituency boundary. It would cause unspeakable environmental damage and noise, air and light pollution. Therefore, Councillor Mark Howard of Canvey Island, Mr. Tony Thomas of Hadleigh and Mr. Adrian Roper of Benfleet, all of whose communities would be damaged by the proposal, have helped to compile a petition of about 10,000 signatures in the following terms:
	To the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of concerned residents of South East Essex and surrounding areas sheweth that the Government's proposed Cliffe Airport option appears from the very scant details so far revealed by the Government to offer far more disadvantages than advantages to South East Essex and the Government has totally failed to consult the people of S. E. Essex on the question.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to rescind its Cliffe airport option and undertake substantial, informed and open consultation in S. E. Essex.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Podiatry Services

Peter Viggers: This petitition relates to podiatry services in the Gosport and Portsmouth area. Its origin is a circular from the national health service of October 2001 entitled XImproving podiatry services for local people". One might therefore reasonably expect services to improve. The truth is that, of the 900 people referred monthly for podiatry care, most will not receive it and existing patients will be denied it. As the circular says:
	XMany people with relatively low needs who have become accustomed to receiving foot care will no longer be able to do so . . . The podiatry service will provide shorter packages of treatment for conditions that can be improved. Ongoing care will only take place where the health of limbs is vulnerable."
	My constituents are baffled and angered by that and more than 200 signatures have been put to a petition that states that the residents of the area are
	distressed and alarmed by the reduction in podiatry services which will end the provision of foot care to the wide range of local residents, many of whom are elderly and infirm, and notes that many will have great difficulty or expense in making alternative arrangements for foot care.
	The petitioners therefore plead that the Secretary of State should
	restore services in Gosport and the other areas in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to their former level.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

PENSION FUNDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Derek Wyatt: I am most grateful that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have given me this opportunity to discuss pensions and, in particular, the plight of workers at ASW Sheerness and ASW Cardiff. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) also hopes to catch your eye.
	This has been our second day of lobbying Parliament. Fifty-two Members have already signed our early-day motion and, late last night, I handed in the ASW Sheerness petition to the House. I am most grateful to see so many Welsh Labour colleagues here to support me.
	Yesterday, the ASW pension action group from both Sheerness and Cardiff saw my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as well as Des Hamilton from the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and Mr. Geoffrey Norris at No. 10 Downing street. I know that from our debrief later on yesterday evening that the group found the meetings helpful, stimulating and thought provoking. Even at this early stage of our negotiations for a just settlement to the pension fund, I want to place on record my thanks to Ministers for their willingness to engage in this process.
	Three months ago, I was looking forward to a quiet weekend and was independently minding my business on the train home to Sittingbourne when I was called on my mobile just after 7.15 pm on Thursday 4 July 2002 by Graham Mackenzie, the then chief executive officer of the ASW Group. He told me that the company was likely to go into receivership.
	It took me some time to find all our Ministers and some of their Welsh equivalents. It was well past midnight before I reached the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was still up preparing her speech in a hotel in Cambridge.
	I should like to add a note of thanks and gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, who is responsible for manufacturing, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), as well as the First Minister for Wales and, again, Mr. Geoffrey Norris at No. 10, for trying to find a way of preventing the company from going into receivership. The blame can be squarely laid at the door of the dithering bankers representing a once-famous bank, NatWest.
	Unless we are in our 50s and beginning to think about retirement—that fantasy house we have dreamt about or that cruise we have always wanted to take—we rarely think about our pension and what it is worth. We pay into a scheme and expect it to bring if not rich dividends, at least a comfortable existence. I am beginning to think that a large majority of working people in this country are in for a nasty shock.
	About 8.5 million people in the UK have a final pension scheme. They are also known as defined benefits schemes. In practice, they are a way that our people save for a second pension, knowing that the state pension will not always cater for all their needs. All Governments have encouraged employees to take out such pensions. I am also beginning to suspect that final pension schemes will become better known over the next few years as the pension virus that slipped under our doors at work and disappeared through the cracks in the window. I suspect that many final pension schemes are in deficit. Over the past few months, I have read that BT and Trinity Mirror's pension schemes are billions of pounds in debt. I wonder how many other FTSE 100 companies' schemes are in the same boat.
	The analysis by the TUC of the Government Actuary's figures suggests that 1.8 million fewer employees are in final salary schemes than a decade ago. Its figures show that there were 5.6 million employees in such schemes in 1991 compared to 3.8 million in 2001. Of those, only 200,000 have transferred to money-only schemes, some of which are inferior, leaving a net loss of 1.6 million fewer people with any form of occupational pension. So pensioner poverty—something that the Government are proud to be helping to solve—will be a growing problem unless we do something about it now.
	I am of course aware that the Government are preparing a Green Paper on pensions which is being drawn up by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. Green Papers are the slow burn of Governments. They take between three and five years to be enacted. FTSE 100 companies would never sanction Green Papers because none of the blue-sky thinking is ever costed. That is indicative of Whitehall culture, which finds doing basic sums difficult. How can politicians, stakeholders and our citizens and would-be voters ever understand what choices they have unless they know what the costs will be to both the Exchequer and, frankly, their back pocket? It is naive of civil servants to maintain that absurd situation. I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Green Paper, which I hope will be published before Christmas, comes with fully costed models so that we can better understand the alternative packages that are before us. Not to do so would be a great mistake. I want to see an end for ever to pensioner poverty. At the same time, we all need to know the likely cost implications.
	Let me return to the grave issue of the ASW Sheerness pension problem. I have been made redundant twice in my life. The first time was a shock; the second time was shocking. The experience burns a hole in one's being. It burns doubly when a person has a young family and a hefty mortgage to pay. It hurts our closest relationships. Imagine then that at the same time as being made redundant, someone is told that their final salary scheme has been placed into administration and that, because of the arcane system, it may be three, four or five years before it is possible to know what it is worth and whether what that person has been saving for is worth anything at all. It is the worst kind of double whammy. That has happened to more than 1,000 workers at both ASW Sheerness and ASW Cardiff. They are powerless. They have been mugged by the pension virus.
	It is not just ASW workers who have experienced that appalling problem. Nearly 300 final pension schemes have been wound up this year, affecting 40,000 people. Consider the case of Lister's in Haywood, Lancashire. Its workers were originally told that they would get around 75 to 80 per cent. of their expected pension, but ended up with nothing. The hard-cash figures were stunning. The fund value was #6 million. The independent trustee charged #400,000. The legal fees were #80,000. KPMG receivers charged #49,000. For setting up the pensioners' annuities, Abbey National charged #130,000. There were other miscellaneous costs of #140,000. That gave a total of #800,000 of costs to administer a failed pension scheme, which is nearly 14 per cent. of the fund value.
	United Engineering Forgings in Ayr, Scotland, went into insolvency and it was revealed that the employees' pension fund, run by Prudential, was underfunded to the tune of #12 million. Let us consider the case of Albert Fisher Group, which acquired Saphir Produce, whose pension fund was transferred to Albert Fisher. When Albert Fisher went broke, pensions from the original company, Saphir, were worth nothing.
	In our meetings yesterday with the Minister for Pensions, the ASW pension group left nine questions for him to answer. I shall spare his blushes by not reading them into the record because I know that he has promised to respond to them over the next few weeks. However, I want to tell him about three cases to show him the brutality of the system. At ASW Sheerness a man with 31 years' service was due to retire on 31 July 2002. He had a written statement of pension benefits for that date which he naturally assumed to be legally enforceable. He has lost #3,600 per annum through the pension fund being put into administration. Ironically the date of his retirement was originally agreed to suit the company's requirements, and had he insisted on taking his pension sooner he would have lost nothing.
	The second case concerns another man with 31 years' service who was due to retire on 31 August. He too had a written statement of benefits. After wind-up, the 30 per cent. reduction knocked more than #3,200 per annum off his pension. In this case it did not leave him enough to survive on and he has had to carry on working beyond his planned retirement date. The third case is that of a man who will retire at the end of November after 26 years in the pension fund. He has not even been advised yet of his reduced figures. He faces the prospect of retiring on an unknown but certainly heavily reduced retirement income without even the opportunity of continued working to offset the loss. Some of these people have worked 20, 25 or 30 years and paid #100 a month into a pension fund, and they have no rights over it. There are many more details of cases on a clever website, www.pensionstheft.org, which I urge Members to read.

Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Derek Wyatt: I will not.
	I suggest to the Minister that there is a solution, which I hope will be included in the Green Paper. We need to take a lead from the USA and introduce a pension benefit guarantee. In the USA, when Polaroid and LTV, ironically a steel company, filed for bankruptcy earlier in the year with serious shortfalls in their pensions, the guarantee came into play and the deficit was made good. Will the Minister consider introducing that scheme? However, instead of asking the financial markets to take the risk, could we consider funding it through the national insurance scheme that we all pay into? Will the Minister cost that option and show the figures in the Green Paper? That is the quickest and cleanest way to stop future workers being mugged.
	In ASW's case, however, my workers may have to wait between three and five years before they find out whether they have a pension because the independent trustee can more or less take as long as he likes. It is, after all, in his interest to do so because he takes his fees from the pension fund. There is a case to be made for an independent trustee organisation, akin to the current Pensions Advisory Service, to be paid for by the Government.
	While those workers are waiting, we would welcome the Government's commitment to right that wrong by making an ex gratia payment into the ASW pension funds at Sheerness and Cardiff. That would correct the appalling injustice and show our people, as we have done with the miners compensation fund and the Chatham dockyard workers, that this Government have proudly honoured their responsibilities, in sharp contrast to the Conservative party, which, on those two issues, sat on its collective hands for 18 years, refusing to budge. I implore the Minister to help us to secure that one-off payment to the ASW pension funds.

Kevin Brennan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this debate. I apologise for my voice, which was over-exerted in cheering Wales in its victory tonight over Italy.
	This is a very serious issue, and I rise to speak as a Cardiff Member. The ASW plant in Cardiff is not in my constituency but in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), whose ministerial office precludes him from participating in this debate. I should also like to mention the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who are present.
	Yesterday, I went with representatives of the work force of ASW in Cardiff, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and representatives of the ASW work force in Sheerness to meet the Minister for Pensions, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and other Ministers and advisors to discuss the plight of the ASW workers. It is fair to say that many of us did not realise the jaw-dropping injustice—that is the only way that one can describe it—of current occupational pensions law.
	I spoke yesterday to someone called Brian from ASW in Cardiff. He is one of many who have worked for the same company, man and boy. He paid 5 per cent. of his salary into the pension scheme for 24 years on the promise that he would receive as a final pension an accrual rate of one 60th of his salary for each year's service. He might have expected, at current values, to retire on a pension of about #12,000. He did not choose to join the pension scheme; it was a condition of employment when he was a young man that he joined it. He did so in the expectation and on the promise that at the end of the day he would receive a pension. He never realised that if the company went into receivership he could lose everything—that he could end up with nothing.
	In fairness, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, the situation in Cardiff might be even more critical than in Sheerness because the workers in Cardiff have no idea whether they will receive any pension at all once the benefits of the pension scheme have been distributed to current pensioners and the independent trustee has taken his cut. That is another issue, because the independent trustee is allowed to set his own fees, write his own cheques and take whatever proportion of the pension fund that he wishes in winding it up. There is no incentive whatever to do the job quickly, efficiently or effectively.

Julie Morgan: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the members of the ASW work force in Cardiff whom we met in Blackpool felt deeply aggrieved at the fact that every phone call that they made to the independent trustee cost an enormous amount of money—more than #300 per hour, I think. That emphasises my hon. Friend's point about the independent trustee being able to charge what he likes and take it out of the pension fund. Every phone call that the work force make reduces the amount of money that they are likely to receive.

Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because she is absolutely right: the workers are frightened to phone or write to the independent trustee because they know that every time they do so they are robbing themselves. Every time that he is asked a query about their pensions he will charge it to the fund. They face that uncertainty for three to five years.
	The principles are all wrong. Pensions should be about security in retirement. It is completely wrong that the workers bear the risk when a company goes into receivership. I thought that shareholders were supposed to bear the risk of an investment, yet when a company goes under, their debts—those of the banks, anyway—are secured. The workers bear the risk not only of losing their jobs, as, sadly, many in Cardiff already have—some of them hope that they might get them back eventually, but many of them are out of work—but of losing their pensions. That cannot be right. It cannot be right that workers' pensions are put at risk when a company goes into receivership.
	Wherever there is a risk, there must be a system to spread it across the entire pensions industry in the form of some discontinuance fund—or whatever one wants to call it—to protect workers. I urge the Minister to consider that in the Green Paper and to consider legislation in that regard. In the meantime, I urge the Government to consider very carefully the possibility of assisting the workers in their current plight.

Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Brennan: I will not be giving way. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies the courtesies normally observed during Adjournment debates. I will not give way for that reason.
	I plead with the Minister to consider what legal means are available to help the workers in their current plight, and to consider the future when the Government next legislate on these matters.

Ian McCartney: On behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is present tonight, and myself, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing the debate, although I offer no congratulations in respect of its subject matter. He has demonstrated a model of best practice in how Members of Parliament should act to protect the interests of their constituents. I know that in the past 24 hours alone he has lobbied the Prime Minister's office, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and myself; tabled an early-day motion with more than 50 signatures; and organised a petition, which was handed in to No. 10 yesterday. That has generated a huge amount of media interest, which I imagine will continue for some time.
	I was not only sorry to hear about the case in yesterday's meeting, but I became more frustrated, agitated and, not least, angered as the full details of the case were unravelled in front of me. It must be causing those affected considerable distress and concern, and I am concerned that many individuals feel isolated and are receiving insufficient information about their future financial arrangements. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the problems facing members of the Allied Steel and Wire pension scheme.
	The meeting that I attended with my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and representatives of the ASW pensions action group was constructive. We identified several practical ways forward. I undertook to address a number of technical pensions issues in a detailed note to the action group and my hon. Friends, and to discuss the issues raised and the Government's approach to them with colleagues throughout Government. I shall also write to the independent trustee and OPAS about the range of concerns listed yesterday by the representatives of the steelworkers. I shall also write to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the pensions ombudsman specifically about the circumstances surrounding the early retirement packages of the two former ASW directors. Furthermore, I will reflect on how we might be able to help, by, for example, providing support from our officials and working with my hon. Friends.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has called for the Green Paper to include costed models. I assure him that when we publish the Green Paper later in the year, it will include a financial assessment of the implications of our proposals—indeed, alongside the Green Paper we will publish a technical document that will set out that sort of detail and other material supporting our proposals.
	The case raises two important issues. One concerns the fairness, or otherwise, of the current statutory priority order. The Pensions Act 1995 introduced a statutory priority order for occupational pension schemes that are subject to the minimum funding requirement and start to wind up from 6 April 1997. It sets out how the assets of the scheme are to be applied towards meeting the scheme's liabilities for pensions and other benefits.
	The rationale behind the statutory priority order was to produce an equitable distribution of assets when a scheme winds up. That does not mean that the current priority order is ideal or, indeed, immutable. In fact, Alan Pickering's recent report has proposed a change in the order that might go some way to helping deferred as well as existing pensioners. I am sympathetic to what was said to me yesterday and to what Alan Pickering had to say in his report. We will examine that extremely carefully when preparing the Green Paper on pensions.
	The second issue concerns the position of any debts due to the pension scheme in the overall priority list of creditors. Certain unpaid pension contributions may be pursued as a preferential debt in the event of insolvency of the employer. It seems to me that the issue is whether the contribution that employees have made—often over many years—to the success of their company and to the running of their pension fund, should enjoy a preferential status. I believe that the answer to that is self-evident, and I assure my hon. Friends that I will raise the matter with ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.
	In the meantime, my hon. Friend will be well aware that the Enterprise Bill will abolish the Crown's preferential right to recover unpaid taxes, and those changes will mean that the position of the remaining preferential creditors will be improved in cases where there is insufficient money to pay them in full.
	It may also be possible under the provisions contained in the Pensions Act 1995 for members of the ASW pension schemes to have their state scheme rights restored, thus ensuring that they receive an additional pension under the state scheme in addition to their basic state pension. I will be writing to my hon. Friends and the group about this later.
	Some of the concern in this case has centred on the activities of the independent trustee. I received a number of complaints about the trustees yesterday. I asked for those to be made to me in writing, not because I do not believe them but because I want them to be set out accurately. As soon as I have received these complaints, I have given an undertaking to raise them directly with both the independent trustee and with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
	When a scheme like ASW is winding up, it is understandable that members have genuine concerns about the cost of trustees' fees. The law requires the independent trustee to disclose the scale of the fees that have been charged to scheme members.
	Independent trustees should also be able to demonstrate to OPRA that they are acting professionally and in the best interests of the members. If that is not the case, OPRA can replace trustees where it has evidence that those appointed by the insolvency practitioner are failing to carry out their duties in a responsible manner. As soon as I receive information and have confirmed what was said yesterday, I shall take steps to address the issues directly with the independent trustee and OPRA.
	My hon. Friend has been in correspondence with me on issues involving additional voluntary contributions; he raised the issues with me again at yesterday's meeting. I have agreed to respond to specific cases that were taken up before yesterday. When I am sent further information, I undertake to write to my hon. Friend on the general issues of AVCs and how they relate to the various schemes in this context.
	Under Inland Revenue rules, people can now take AVC benefits at any time between 50 and 75, whether or not they have left employment and whether or not they have started to draw their main scheme pension. However, scheme rules must have been amended to allow this. Therefore, before I can give a detailed answer to my hon. Friend, I shall await the details of the schemes as AVCs relate to them.
	Having said that, I do not, unfortunately, know all the details of ASW's organisation of AVC arrangements. If there are additional problems in these areas, perhaps the best thing would be for my hon. Friend and his group to come back to me with fuller information. At each stage, we will see what we can do to assist the process of securing information and ensuring that the arrangements that are sought are available within the rules of the scheme.
	My hon. Friend has called for an ex gratia payment to be paid into the pension scheme. I would not like to give him false hope. Indeed, I cannot give him any hope. The Government are not able to assist schemes in wind-up that are underfunded. I am unaware of any legal basis on which Ministers can make such payments. However, my hon. Friend mentioned payments to the miners compensation fund and the Chatham dockyard workers. I shall certainly look into those instances to ascertain whether they offer any way forward, while acknowledging that there may be significant differences between them and the current situation. I do not draw any parallels but I shall ensure that no stone is left unturned to try to resolve the questions that my hon. Friend raises. I will look into these matters and respond to him directly.
	My hon. Friend called for the introduction of a form of pension benefit guarantee. The Government have previously considered putting in place measures to assist occupational pension schemes when the sponsoring employer becomes insolvent. Both issues of a central discontinuance fund and compulsory insurance were consulted on as part of the consultation process for the replacement of the minimum funding requirement. Both options received little support. That is mainly due to two factors. First, the majority of schemes are well run in this country. Those who are members of schemes and the trustees who represent them were not supportive of the idea that they should top-slice their well run schemes to assist the underfunding of poorly run schemes. Nor was there any great support for the idea of a fund linked to an insurance-based system. An insurance system would have to be created to re-invest in the risk associated with it. There was little support when we consulted on that.
	A central discontinuance fund raises issues of affordability and sustainability, as well funded schemes would have to subsidise schemes that were less well funded or less well looked after. This option would also require, as I think my hon. Friend was hinting, an ultimate guarantor—that is, the state. The Government would be unable to take on this responsibility and the cost would ultimately fall on the taxpayers, including taxpayers paying into a well funded scheme and paying national insurance contributions, and taxpayers who have no other scheme at all and rely on the basic state pension scheme. There is therefore no possibility at this stage of the Government acceding to such a request.
	Further, the issue of compulsory insurance arrangements raises the potential for abuse and a moral hazard. Some schemes may neglect their responsibilities and obligations to their members, in the knowledge that their liabilities will still be met in the event of insolvency.
	I am aware that a number of concerns have been raised about the length of time that it can take to finalise arrangements when a scheme winds up. With this in mind, the Government introduced a package of measures in April this year designed to speed up the winding-up process. That legislation is part of the Government's continued commitment to enhancing the protection for pension scheme members. The legislation places greater visible accountability on those involved in winding up a pension scheme. The new rules mean that OPRA will have a more proactive role in facilitating the winding up of schemes and supporting the trustees.
	In the light of the concerns raised, perhaps my hon. Friends would like me to arrange a meeting with OPRA on that specific point. If they want that to happen, I will make the necessary arrangements.
	Finally, occupational pensions are an important part of the overall benefits or remuneration package offered by many employers to prospective and current employees. The forthcoming Green Paper on pensions will allow us to consult widely on how both employers and employees can be encouraged to acknowledge the value of this part of the remuneration package.
	I therefore look forward to continuing a constructive dialogue with my hon. Friend and will pursue the matter on behalf of his constituents. I will do so in an honest and fair way. Where I can help, I will say so and do so. Where I cannot, I will be strictly honest about that. If we can work on that basis, I hope that I can help my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the House in their efforts to resolve a complicated and difficult situation. I wish him well, and anything that we can do to assist will be done.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.